|
|
Judge to Walmart rehire workers fired for striking
By Ramyrez 2016-01-22 14:27:11
This is the problem right here.
Everyone with any business experience said these polices would hurt not only business but the employees it was meant to help. And here we are. With every business taking up the Wal-mart how to treat employment handbook.
In the past maybe something could have been done about it but now that everyone does it, thanks to our government shoving through horrible forced legislation, times are not looking good for the middle-lower class.
If the people at the top of these mega-corporations would bother lowering their salaries beyond "ridiculous," it wouldn't be nearly as necessary to cut from the people at the bottom. ^^;
The places people have to work have been rapidly receding ever since both the recession and the ACA took hold. Employers can treat employees however they want because what are they going to do? Get another job? Where? HAHAA... It is not getting better hate to tell you. I am seriously torn on who to feel sorry for business that can barley survive or the employees that have no other choices.
Except...oh wait. Walmart also helps put those small businesses out of operation with its practices...maybe things were better without Walmart and its ilk entirely...
And as I stated. One contradiction you pointed out was deliberate for the sake of satire which, in hindsight, I admit. I should have known it wouldn't have gone over well.
And the other contradiction...isn't.
Anyhow.
I don't think we should need legislation and policy to tell modern companies not to treat people like ***, but it's been proven over and over since the industrial revolution that we do. And how!
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-01-22 14:33:02
my brain was permanently crippled by your sentence...I'm suing!!!
how would anyone know you were a walmart employee if you didn't tell them?
By Altimaomega 2016-01-22 14:34:35
If the people at the top of these mega-corporations would bother lowering their salaries beyond "ridiculous," it wouldn't be nearly as necessary to cut from the people at the bottom. ^^;
Shocking that the whole spreading of the wealth thing the ACA was suppose to do totally backfired and made it even more profitable for the people at the top. Surprised nobody seen that coming.
Except...oh wait. Walmart also helps put those small businesses out of operation with its practices...maybe things were better without Walmart and its ilk entirely... Yes they do.. and the best part.. The ACA barley even effects Wal-mart because of those practices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did we learn anything today?
Edit for your Edit:
I don't think we should need legislation and policy to tell modern companies not to treat people like ***, but it's been proven over and over since the industrial revolution that we do. And how! Did we learn anything today? Guess not..
By Ramyrez 2016-01-22 14:40:54
Shocking that the whole spreading of the wealth thing the ACA was suppose to do totally backfired and made it even more profitable for the people at the top. Surprised nobody seen that coming.
Which is why I've said from the beginning the ACA was half-assed and didn't go far enough, leaving doors open for employers to screw over employees.
But the Corporotitians already hate the ACA, let alone anything stronger.
Yes they do.. and the best part.. The ACA barley even effects Wal-mart because of those practices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did we learn anything today?
Yes, that apparently Americans will live in utter misery as long as the people at the top are rich and happy and tossing them scraps.
The funny thing is that you and I are very alike -- if I make my guess right -- in that we could really stand for modern medicine and the like to stick around while the rest of the system *** off and we go back to small-town living of years past, give or take a few social changes.
But hey, we could each live in towns where everyone agreed on those social stances and it wouldn't effect the other at all!
Ignorance really is bliss. I see it expressed on my Facebook feed daily. (Edit: or maybe it's sociopathy. Narcissism? The ability to completely not give a *** about the misery of other people is bliss.)
By Altimaomega 2016-01-22 14:48:50
The funny thing is that you and I are very alike -- if I make my guess right -- in that we could really stand for modern medicine and the like to stick around while the rest of the system *** off and we go back to small-town living of years past, give or take a few social changes.
That's funny I've thought the same thing. But I don't understand you when you say things like this.
Which is why I've said from the beginning the ACA was half-assed and didn't go far enough, Anything that literally forces me to pay a company for services or I get fined for not complying, I cannot go along with. If they took away that aspect of it I might be swayed into going along with SOME portions of it.
But hey, we could each live in towns where everyone agreed on those social stances and it wouldn't effect the other at all! But then your town would pass laws that makes my town pay for things it does not want. Like the above.
Ignorance really is bliss. I see it expressed on my Facebook feed daily. (Edit: or maybe it's sociopathy. Narcissism? The ability to completely not give a *** about the misery of other people is bliss.) I'm confused again.. Are you calling me ignorant, yourself ignorant. or everyone ignorant?
By Ramyrez 2016-01-22 14:52:57
Anything that literally forces me to pay a company for services or I get fined for not complying, I cannot go along with. If they took away that aspect of it I might be swayed into going along with SOME portions of it.
Because I'm a "stop halfassing" type person. Just make it a damn single payer system already. The ACA is a clusterfuck that tries to play nice with a pre-existing system.
When a pre-existing system is hopeless convoluted, you're just adding another layer of "wtf are you even doing?"
Then again, there are all kinds of reasons you can come up with why a single-payer system is a problem in a country as big as ours too. I don't know. I feel like it's got problems either way, but if you're going to make mistakes, you may as well do it trying to help people and not intentionally screwing them over for the gain of a few. -.-;
By Ramyrez 2016-01-22 14:55:24
I think what I'm saying is pass the Jack because it doesn't really matter who wins or gets their way, someone's getting *** and it's probably the people in the middle paying for it.
Edit: Though, I had a fun experience today. The Pew Research Center says that, between my wife and I, we're not just upper middle class, we're butting up so close to the middle class ceiling we're practically cracking it and on the verge of upper class!
...I had a good long laugh at that one.
What a joke.
By Altimaomega 2016-01-22 14:58:14
Anything that literally forces me to pay a company for services or I get fined for not complying, I cannot go along with. If they took away that aspect of it I might be swayed into going along with SOME portions of it.
Because I'm a "stop halfassing" type person. Just make it a damn single payer system already. The ACA is a clusterfuck that tries to play nice with a pre-existing system.
When a pre-existing system is hopeless convoluted, you're just adding another layer of "wtf are you even doing?"
Then again, there are all kinds of reasons you can come up with why a single-payer system is a problem in a country as big as ours too. I don't know. I feel like it's got problems either way, but if you're going to make mistakes, you may as well do it trying to help people and not intentionally screwing them over for the gain of a few. -.-;
Or we could actually go after the source of the problem. A T.V. show actually exists about a guy making the absolute purest quality crystal meth to pay his astronomical hospital bills.
By Ramyrez 2016-01-22 14:59:25
Or we could actually go after the source of the problem. A T.V. show actually exists about a guy making the absolute purest quality meth to pay his astronomical hospital bills.
Yeah...despite my thoughts on decriminalizing drug charges, drug dealers are not my favorite people. Despite how brilliant it supposedly was I couldn't get into that show. Ditto Mad Men.
By Altimaomega 2016-01-22 15:01:17
Sounds like you're all for people making meth to pay for hospital bills?
LOL, I could only make it throught the first season and a half personally.
By Ramyrez 2016-01-22 15:01:39
Sounds like you're all for people making meth to pay for hospital bills?
I'm all about there not being hospital bills.
By Altimaomega 2016-01-22 15:04:22
Sounds like you're all for people making meth to pay for hospital bills?
I'm all about there not being hospital bills.
I don't mind reasonable bills when I am actually paying for a service rendered. Actually when you don't have insurance, hospital bills are "Almost" reasonable.
But since most people don't know this the ACA happened.. The Tragic Irony is humorous.
By Ramyrez 2016-01-22 15:17:55
Well we've gone pretty off-topic at this point, so I'll just say that I think with or without the ACA the system was already hopelessly *** and needed overhauled.
Maybe we'll get lucky and the ACA will break it entirely and we can start from scratch.
As for Walmart, I really don't care if they go *** up under the weight of having to actually treat their employees well. The vacuum they leave would rapidly be filled by a lot of players, and things would probably be better employment-wise for both employer and employee with a lot more competition for/among both.
That's a pipe dream though, I'm sure Wallyworld will get exactly what it wants in the end, somehow, or twist whatever they don't want into something that works for them in the end.
By Altimaomega 2016-01-22 15:22:27
Considering the ACA doesn't effect wal-mart and only hurts it's competitors I highly doubt it is going to change or go anywhere. They are making profits as you said and they are only cutting stores to increase those profits.
In the end the middle-low class are the only ones that get hurt from any of this.
By Jimmyballsack 2016-01-22 15:38:25
I applaud the aldermen here in Chicago for taking a stand against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart usually demands city subsidies when building their stores. These include street medians, city lights, those cheap traffic control lights that never have turn lane sensors so you're automatically subject to an extended red light while a turn arrow cycles, turn traffic or none, etc... Well the aldermen basically said, if you want to do business in the city and for the city to subsidize you, you'll have to pay a living wage. It was called the Big Box Ordinance. Unfortunately, this only lasted short of 2 months when the Daley machine vetoed it, and probably fueled by fear of retribution, the City Council sustained the veto.
Proponents of Wal-Mart's slave wages argue that not having a big box store due to Big Box ordinances ultimately hurts the local economy more. I personally think that Wally Mart would cave and pay the small increase in wages, rather than forgo income from a major city. That's just me though.
 Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11372
By Garuda.Chanti 2016-01-23 12:24:59
In slightly related Wall Mart news:
Closing Walmart stores slash prices by 50%
CNN
Quote: But not everything is on sale. The deep discount doesn't apply to firearms, ammunition, fuel, prescriptions, jewelry, lottery tickets or alcohol.
Wireless plans, smartphones and tablet devices are also not on sale, Walmart said.
Also: Here's the list of U.S. Walmart stores to close
Live near one?
Quote: Judge orders Walmart to rehire workers it fired for striking
Walmart broke the law when it fired 16 workers who went on strike in 2013, a judge ruled on Thursday. The judge ordered Walmart to offer the workers their jobs back within two weeks and make them whole for any lost wages.
Walmart has the right to appeal the ruling, and a company spokesman told The Huffington Post that the retailer still believes it acted lawfully and will "pursue all of our options."
The case stems from a series of high-profile strikes coordinated by the union-backed group OUR Walmart, including a trip workers made to company headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas. Several of the workers who took part ended up losing their jobs. Walmart maintained that the firings were legal because the strikes were intermittent and the workers' absences weren't excused.
In a lengthy decision, Geoffrey Carter, an administrative law judge for the National Labor Relations Board, ruled that the strikes were protected by law, and that Walmart had no right to discipline workers for taking part in them.
Carter also ordered Walmart to expunge any disciplinary infractions against those employees, and to read a notice in the stores where they worked informing employees of their rights under the law.
Making Change at Walmart, a Walmart foe backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, said in a statement that the decision was a "huge victory" for the workers involved in the case. " t sends a message to Walmart that its workers cannot be silenced," the group said.
Source
|
|
