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

251–257 of 257 posts

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

#251

Post by jahaja »

randomdata wrote: post #244
jahaja wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion. I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I'm not saying that it's objective. My definition, whatever that may be formalized to, may well be an anti-business definition by your standards. > What do you hop…

> I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics. "Fair market value (FMV) is, in its simplest expression, the price that a person reasonable interested in buying a given asset would pay to a person reasonably interested in selling it for the purchase of the asset or asset would fetch in the marketpl…

> I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics.

Given that this is no economics site and that no parent gave reference to FMV you should probably be more explicit if that's your definition of fair.

Excluding that, that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to even consider - you even quote the important part. Surely you should be able to put that part into the context of a worker?

> why are places like Walmart so afraid of them?

Ehm, profits?

> But what do you take away from it?

Why does this matter to you?

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

#252

Post by randomdata »

jahaja wrote: post #251
randomdata wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics. "Fair market value (FMV) is, in its simplest expression, the price that a person reasonable interested in buying a given asset would pay to a person reasonably interested in selling it for the purchase of the asset or asset would fetch in the marketpl…

> I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics. Given that this is no economics site and that no parent gave reference to FMV you should probably be more explicit if that's your definition of fair. Excluding that, that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to even consider - you even quote the important part. Surely you should be able to put that part into the context of a worker? > why are…

> Given that this is no economics site

Well, we were talking about economics. I wouldn't find it necessary to hold back technical jargon on a forum not specifically about tech if the topic in question was tech.

> and that no parent gave reference to FMV

And what do you think compensation represents, exaclty? That's right, someone's established market value.

> that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to even consider

What quote? Fair market value? What formal definition do you go by?

> Surely you should be able to put that part into the context of a worker?

Yes, although we've already discussed that to death, surely? Without a union, each person has the fair opportunity to make their own choices to their own benefit, including undercutting the next guy to ensure getting the job over the next guy. With a union, the people must be employed under the terms of the union, and do not have fair opportunity to make their own choices for their own benefit, like undercutting the next guy to secure the job.

This is a good thing. Fair is harmful. You don't want the next guy undercutting you, as that's what drives down value, reduces compensation, encourages you to take dangerous risks, and so on. I still find it difficult to fathom that you are in support of a fair labour market where anyone can do those things. We have a long history before unions to see what happens when the market is fair. It's not pretty.

> Ehm, profits?

But there's no pressure, right? Walmart doesn't have to change a thing if they don't want to. With no pressure, why would profits change? The market is fair, according to you, after all.

> Why does this matter to you?

Because it might help me figure out where you are coming from. Are you anti-union? I'm staring to get the impression that you are. Why do you support a fair market when the downsides are abundantly clear?

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

#253

Post by lotharbot »

jonathankoren wrote: post #191
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…

The benefit of the subsidy is Walmart because they can pay less. Having a job and being stuck on charity is not the system working as designed. A system working as designed wouldn't need charity at all, and certainly would be needed for those that are working and are still indigent. I really find it odd that you think paying more would be "taking from the poor to give to the poor". Walmart and the Walton family are e…

> "I suggest you get out of your bubble"

That's a rather aggressive and insulting way to attempt to make your point.

Disclosure -- I am married to Dove. We live in 80219 [0]. Median income here is a little under half of the state average. More than a third of the adult population has less than high school education; less than one third has ever been to college.

In the last four years, in addition to our nuclear family, we've had the following live in our house:

- a fresh college graduate, working as a tutor in the public schools

- teen parents and their infant; the mom worked at WalMart and the dad at another grocery store

- my divorced sister and her elementary-aged son; she worked part time as a substitute paraprofessional in special ed classrooms

- my sister who was doing just fine on her own until her building was bought out from under her, and couldn't find an affordable place where she was able to practice her religion (can't find roommates who keep kosher; here she has room to set up her own mini-kitchen.)

My parents live one zip code over, in a slightly less poor but still very poor area. My mom works at WalMart; my dad is disabled; they also have two adult children and two non-relatives living with them, including one who prefers the pronoun "they" and one who goes by the nickname "Hobo Joe".

Why am I saying all of this? Because this is the "bubble" we live in. And when well-meaning people look in from the outside and say "minimum wage should be a living wage" and "people shouldn't be able to be partially government-subsidized and partially earning a wage", I think they don't realize what that approach actually entails. It basically guarantees my mom would be unemployed and 100% on government benefits, because nobody is going to hire a 66 year old woman who spent 30 years out of the workforce raising children. It means that people like "Hobo Joe" can't get an entry-level job and are therefore going to live their entire lives on government benefits, instead of slowly becoming more independent. Yes, these people are screwed by the economy -- but trying to make entry-level employers like WalMart pay more makes them even more screwed.

You don't help people climb the ladder by kicking out the bottom rung. You help them by making the transition from unemployed to entry level as smooth as possible, by making it so that a person can make a partial transition where they have a mix of both, and by eliminating "cliffs" that they have to jump over in order to improve their situation.

[0] http://www.city-data.com/zips/80219.html

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

#254

Post by jahaja »

randomdata wrote: post #252
jahaja wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics. Given that this is no economics site and that no parent gave reference to FMV you should probably be more explicit if that's your definition of fair. Excluding that, that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to even consider - you even quote the important part. Surely you should be able to put that part into the context of a worker? > why are…

> Given that this is no economics site Well, we were talking about economics. I wouldn't find it necessary to hold back technical jargon on a forum not specifically about tech if the topic in question was tech. > and that no parent gave reference to FMV And what do you think compensation represents, exaclty? That's right, someone's established market value. > that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to e…

No, there's no guarantee that what the OP meant by fair is what you want it to be. It can just as well be - it's even more likely - an ethical judgement of fair, e.g. a sustainable living wage.

How can you possibly think I'm anti-union? This is just dishonest and pointless. Thanks for the discussion so far, but I'm leaving it here as it's obvious we won't get much further and you're cherry-picking and twisting half of the words I'm using.

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

#255

Post by wpietri »

randomdata wrote: post #250
wpietri wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not. I will say, though, that I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.

> I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it. You don't find it necessary, but you felt compelled to anyway? Weird. The problem here is that you haven't even addressed the topic at hand. You went on some tangent that was irrelevant. All I could do was grasp at one small part of your comment that seems like it may have been some…

I'm not particularly emotional about this topic. I have no particular pro- or anti-union agenda. I do, though, like to see the topic discussed thoughtfully and with understanding, something you failed to do here.

I do though, have a great distaste for jacksassery, so you and your faux forgiveness can take a hike. That's yet another rhetorical technique, yet again used poorly.

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

#256

Post by randomdata »

wpietri wrote: post #255
randomdata wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it. You don't find it necessary, but you felt compelled to anyway? Weird. The problem here is that you haven't even addressed the topic at hand. You went on some tangent that was irrelevant. All I could do was grasp at one small part of your comment that seems like it may have been some…

I'm not particularly emotional about this topic. I have no particular pro- or anti-union agenda. I do, though, like to see the topic discussed thoughtfully and with understanding, something you failed to do here. I do though, have a great distaste for jacksassery, so you and your faux forgiveness can take a hike. That's yet another rhetorical technique, yet again used poorly.

> I have no particular pro- or anti-union agenda.

Either way, deep down, the discussion really doesn't have anything to do with unions at all. I'm not sure if you simply failed to grasp my comment and thought that attacking my character instead of doing the normal human thing of asking for clarification would lead to helping you understand, or if you are simply a troll and did not care about the subject at all and were just looking for someone to take out your aggressions on.

Either way, HN is not the place for that type of behaviour. I'm not sure what you are getting all emotional about if it is not unions, but whatever it is, it is clearly present and causing you to loose sight of thoughtful and meaningful discussion. Dial that back and maybe we can gain something from this exchange. Something tells me that I'll get another several paragraphs of ad hominems instead, sadly.

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

#257

Post by matchagaucho »

harryh wrote: post #248
matchagaucho wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said... follow the money. I choose to filter this out as false authority, not ad-hominem.

Everyone chooses which science they want to deny so they don't have to confront inaccuracies in their world view. I guess this is yours.

There's no science required here. Walmart is a minimum wage body shop. Plain and simple. So at best, their presence in a community only displaces other minimum wage jobs, or creates more minimum wage jobs.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/walmart-can-afford-15-minimum...

The paper cited is a typical right-wing conservative position that corporate ladders with management positions provide workers with more opportunities for advancement, and thus possibly higher wages.

Post reply on HN