WalMart in the news again...

[Kevin Lang]

Just because a mass of people behave does not mean you lay off your security force.

Though if I had a security force, I could lay them off. I do not think Ford could simply declare that the UAW is dissolved in their plants, and take measures accordingly. If they tried, the hammer of legal proceedings would be dropped on them.

I still believe that if employers treated people with the dignity and respect, unions would fail on their own.

I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on this, as I've seen that people don't like personal change, and if they have power, they want to keep it. Unions have been around a long time, and people accept them. Abolishing them would change their routine, and why should they want to do that, when they're comfortable with the way things are? Also, if I were a union representative who got a posh income & had the power to bring Fortune 500 companies to their knees, I wouldn't give it up. You'd have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers :grin:

Seriously and you see no problems with that?

I'd be annoyed, sure. I'd wonder why I, living closer, can't get that same "gas allowance" so that I can have some fun weekend driving for free.



However, I don't see why the company shouldn't be allowed to do this. It breaks no laws, it isn't heinously invidious, and if I really don't like it & can't find resolution, I can pack up my troubles and get another job.



Yes, I have seen most of Undercover Boss. Speaking of bosses, only an extreme idiot of one would say that to an employee ("looks like we are paying you too much"). That would have pissed me off, and killed my zeal for the job. That said, I wouldn't have used your argument of entitlement, but it got you results so my criticism is meaningless. :haveabeer:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



I too have a job where I have to abide by standards and meet specs, so I see where you are coming from.



My general issue is and point is that when it comes to systems (a workplace is a system, setup mutually by the interests of employees and employer) that include humans within, I promote more of an "organic" and "free" system in favor of a tightly controlled and monitored system.



The reason for this is simple. Humans will do what humans do, and what I mean by that is that in a system with tight controls, rules, and black and white ways of doing things it won't take long for certain people to "optimize" the system. Furthermore, by "optimize", I mean they will work the system in such a way as to promote their best interest, whether that be doing as little work for the most amount of money, coming in as late as possible, leaving as early as possible, whatever.



Case in point, affirmative action. You say you don't like it. But, it is a control set in place because of observations made across a large set of employers and employees. The observation was that it is difficult for certain minorities to get good paying jobs in the numbers some expected. That may or may not still be true today, but at one time, it was felt that was the case, so a set of quotas were put in place. That means that less qualified minorites WILL get the job over more qualified non-minorities. That example furthers my point. By measuring and putting in controls we take away the more "organic", more "free" approach to hiring; that being to hire the best candidate (survival of the fittest).



I've seen "Undercover Boss." Great programming. It really furthers the stereotype of the clueless, out-of-touch executive. Frankly, I don't think all are like that. I don't even think MOST are like that.



BTW, no one is talking about kissing butt to get better pay than someone else for the same job. But let's be real. Unions have fought hard for pay scales that change simply based on tenure. In other words, a person can do the same job year after year, after year, and be getting paid more (often times, much more) than a junior employee brought in to do the same job. Now, granted, through time one does gain a mastery level skill for a certain job...not not all jobs. As you said, you have black and white standards. Either the job is done to the spec, or it isn't. If a 6 month employee is doing a job and getting paid $15/hour, how can an employee with 20 years on the job get (say) $23/hour for the same exact job? Does that happen? I bet it does. I'm not even saying it is a BAD thing that this happens. In such an example the employer is paying extra for the intangible value that tenured employee brings, compensating for loyalty, etc.



There are intangibles that come into play all the time. It's not just butt kissing.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

I still believe that if employers treated people with the dignity and respect, unions would fail on their own. People do not like seeing a CEO get a mega bonus while being completely out of touch with its workers.

But they are cool with union reps driving a new Cadillac every year and smoking big fat cigars...because they are on their side???



Many employees like and their executives. Many companies do treat their employees with dignity and respect.



Are companies really that bad, and CEOs that out of touch, or is that something that unions would like employees to believe, because that adverserial nature feeds their purpose, makes their case that employees need them on their side?



Serious question.



Most humans are more easily lead to join a cause AGAINST something, rather than a cause FOR something. The easiest way to rally against something is to first villify it.



TJR

 

[H D]

You should never know what the person next to you in the same job is making. That is none of your business. That said, there are people working with me making nearly double per hour, full time to my part time, high school dropouts and retired from another job collecting social security. I have 10 years experience in the same job, have a bachelor's degree and working on a Masters. I do not get upset (well, I kinda do) even though I do more work than them, more physical labor, bring more money in, and generally make the customers more pleased.



Doing the same job, doing it better, and getting paid half as much per hour and receiving half the number of hours doesn't bother me one bit. You know why? It's none of my business what my coworkers are paid. I agreed to the hours and the dollars per hour when I got hired, without any idea of what anybody else was making. At that time, that salary was acceptable to me. Why should finding out about what the person next to me is making change that?



The 72 year old lady I work with makes double what I do, works twice the hours and does 1/20 of the work. She doesn't lift anything, ever. She is rude and crass and the customers all hate dealing with her. The other lady in her 60s makes the same money. She just sits at her desk and makes personal calls all day. I DON'T CARE. They're the retirees still having to work. It's none of my business what their salary is. I get upset that because they are in my department I have to do triple the work, but I am paid for results, not to be sure that the workload is fair and the pay equal.



Go do your work, be content with the salary YOU ACCEPTED, and finish the tasks you've been charged with. Do that and all will work itself out in the end. 5 years from now, the same people will be doing the same thing at the job I'm currently at, hoping for another $0.30 raise every year. I will more than have doubled their salaries because I mind my own, do my job to the best of my ability, and don't complain about the choices I have made.



Main point: you accepted that salary at the onset. It was acceptable then; what changed?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



All great points.



I can't help but think there are two types of people in this world:



1. Those that think everything should be equitable; that everyone should have a fair share, and everyone should essentially be given the same "relative" slice of the pie. These people seem to spend a lot of time looking at the "pie", what pieces are being cut, what size pieces people are getting for what they have done to earn it, etc.



2. Then there are those that focus on maximizing their own value and compensation, and they do it independent of others. They aren't worried about the pie, other than the size of the piece that they get. They are constantly trying to figure out how to make themselves more valuable, so that they get a bigger piece of the pie. They also recognize that "making pies" can be difficult, but even so, many of these types of people go out and make their "own pies" because they recognize that gives them the most freedom in defining their own sized piece.



For me, I think unions help and are needed by the type 1 people described above. However, I think (hope) that the type 1 people are becoming a dying breed in this country.



I consider myself a type 2 person. I focus on my own worth to my employer and do it independent of my peers. When I feel undervalued, I try to increase my value, or my recognition of that value, or both. When my employer is making that difficult, I move on, to where I can make my own pie, or have a greater say in the size of the piece I get...



Rules and a system that state that my contributions to and value to a company are identical to someone else doing the same job take away my rights, my individual, my abilities, and cheapen me as a "type 2" person. Such rules, and such a system, dehumanizes people. They essentially strip people of their individuality and uniqueness. Also, they are often hypocritical. Older, more tenured employees get paid more than newer, junior employees for the same job, which flys in the face of "same job, same pay" mentality. That is "both sides of the mouth" hypocricy.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Go do your work, be content with the salary YOU ACCEPTED, and finish the tasks you've been charged with.

I accepted my salary supervising 2 departments. Since then, I was added another department to supervise over, so no, I did not accept the salary they are paying me for the work I am expected to perform. Also, I am on a shift I did not agree to when I accepted the salary they are paying me.



Things changed, including the pay. I went from 2nd shift to 3rd shift and 3rd shift is 1% less than 2nd shift is.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Sorry to hear about those things. Sounds like you should go talk to your boss(es) and negotiate a pay increase, or a delegation of some of your duties to another.



Of course, maybe times are tough and you and others are simply having to make concessions for the current poor economy.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Of course, maybe times are tough and you and others are simply having to make concessions for the current poor economy.

Times are not tough for our "economy". We currently have 25 job openings in the city I work. Business is booming and we are hiring as many people as we can to keep up with our backlog.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Okay, well if your industry and employer is doing well, they are hiring, yet they are marginalizing you, then there are two things you can do: demand appropriate compensation; or go elsewhere.



Oh, I guess there is a third: bide your time.



THR

 

[Bud Williams]

...I would have thought Frank would be all over this thread...:bwahaha:

 

[Kevin Lang]

Oh, I guess there is a third: bide your time.

That's the most accepted option by far. If it weren't, I submit that sources which humorously spin the pent up frustration of employees wouldn't be anywhere near as popular. (e.g. Dilbert, The Office, Undercover Boss)



Speaking of Undercover Boss, I seem to recall that in the Waste Management episode, the CEO agreed to give his female workers special dispensation. Caymen, do you remember that?



:back2topic:

What will the end result of this lawsuit be, if wal-mart looses? What is at stake? That article says this is a class-action lawsuit, and IME those just end with a fine being doled out. So each woman involved in the lawsuit would get some token amount of money. What's the point?



Also, that article is ridiculously biased.

For example:

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has generally been pro-business and hostile to the cause of workers.

A person can't be "pro-business" and hostile to the "cause of workers". Workers ARE the business. Additionally, the preceding court decision (only ONE) that the article uses to justify the quoted statement are heinously spun. The judge threw out an allegedly "compelling" court case because the law forced him to, therefore he is hostile to the cause of workers? That makes no sense.

 

[Tom Schindler]

the CEO agreed to give his female workers special dispensation. Caymen, do you remember that?

Wasn't that because his female workers were using the restroom in the cab of the truck in a coffee can because there was no time to use a real restroom?

That's the most accepted option by far. If it weren't, I submit that sources which humorously spin the pent up frustration of employees wouldn't be anywhere near as popular. (e.g. Dilbert, The Office, Undercover Boss)

That is what I am doing at this point. I always get what I want, so I am waiting until what I want comes knocking at my door, like it always does.





Tom

 

[Kevin Lang]

Wasn't that because his female workers were using the restroom in the cab of the truck in a coffee can because there was no time to use a real restroom?

That's what he said, but that sounds VERY similar in its logic to your scenario of a woman getting paid more because she had to drive further to work.

I always get what I want, so I am waiting until what I want comes knocking at my door, like it always does.

That whole "good things always come to those who wait" adage never really worked for me, and I'm still waiting.

 

[Tom Schindler]

That's what he said, but that sounds VERY similar in its logic to your scenario of a woman getting paid more because she had to drive further to work.

Not really. Driving further to work is a choice. A female using a restroom like a female does, isn't.

What will the end result of this lawsuit be, if wal-mart looses? What is at stake? That article says this is a class-action lawsuit, and IME those just end with a fine being doled out. So each woman involved in the lawsuit would get some token amount of money. What's the point?

What was the point of sufferage? Those women that were NOT allwed to vote fought for the right to. They were not allowed to vote for past elections, but they paved the way for future generations to vote.



I see this as a major point. It paves the way for other women, in the future, to make money that is fair to them.



A woman is no less able to run a business. A woman is no less able to be a manager. A woman is no less able to be a supervisor. Why shouldn't she be paid fairly and given the same opportunities as men?



If this is an isolated incidence where a woman is paid less because of her ability to perform a job, then it is a moot point. If, by standard, all women are paid less, then there is something fishy going on.



If men are paid, on average, 10% more than women, then there is a problem. If women are paid, on average, the same as men, but there are some cases where some women are paid less, then there is no problem.



If a managment position is open and 10% of the total aplications are submited by women, then I can see a bias to men getting the position. If 50% is submited equally by women and men, and 90% of the positions are given to men, then this needs to be looked into.



We do not know all of the details of this case, but Wal*Mart has a history of unfair labor practices such as expecting people to clock out and then give an extra hour of "gratis" labor.



Wal*Mart is not an innocent victim of this lawsuit. Wal*Mart has been accused to pulling crap like this in the past. I am pretty confident this is not an isolated incidence.



There are many very smart women out there. I am sure there were many women qualified to be leaders, but were never given the chance because their only fault is that they were born as a female.



I am happy they are sticking up for themselves.





Tom

 

[Kevin Lang]

Not really.

Yes really.



The issue in the episode was that drivers did not have any time to urinate while on the job*, as they never stopped anywhere to do so. Men and women have different, ahem, plumbing, but a man still needs to take a leak. Why doesn't he get "special time" to hit up a bathroom, while women do?



The men were having to urinate, quite literally, on the job. (Dumpsters) That's ridiculously disgusting, where is their dispensation?



Same issue, different treatment. Honestly, the men's habit was far more disgusting and damning to the company--who wants their trashmen urinating on their building?



The show did not explicitly address, as I recall, the issue of extra time for male drivers to urinate while on duty.



(*Allegedly. The show made no effort to PROVE this claim, we're just supposed to roll with it. Emotional hooks are great for Ratings.)

<HR>

On Walmart,



This lawsuit doesn't do anything for the future women who work at Walmart. Even if Walmart were to loose this lawsuit, all they have to do is pay a fine. That won't stop them. If the alleged discrimination (it isn't proven) continues, all that will happen is that Walmart might have to pay again in a decade.



Remember that this lawsuit was filed 10 years ago. During the 10 years that it took this case to percolate up the levels of legal bs and into the supreme court, it is said that Walmart still discriminated against its female employees.



Lawsuits haven't stopped Walmart yet.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Lawsuits haven't stopped Walmart yet.

Maybe this one will. If not, the lawsuits will continue and if enough people get pissed about it, they will hurt the company enought to do one of two things.



1, they will change the way they do business,

2, they will go out of business.



I do not want to see option number 2 happen (though I hardly ever shop there) but if you can not abide by the law, then you must abide by it.



If Wal*Mart is justified in their business practices, then they have nothing to fear.



I worked for a company that had a motto. "If it doesn't seem right, but it is legal, it isn't right."



They are one of the nations largest privatly held companies. If they can operate that way and be very siccessful, why can't Wal*Mart? Their prices are not that low that they could not afford to do the right thing.





Tom

 

[Kevin Lang]

If not, the lawsuits will continue and if enough people get pissed about it, they will hurt the company enought to do one of two things.

Highly unlikely, if the supposed oppression of a demographic which makes 52% of the world's population (women) hasn't stopped walmart, nothing will.



Sadly you're assuming that Walmart actually is discriminating. That is unproven. Just because the lawsuit made it this far does not mean that it has any merit.

Their prices are not that low that they could not afford to do the right thing.

Hugh gave 1st-person testimony on here that their profit margins are so low that they cannot afford to pay more.



Also, you're idea of "the right thing" relies on an unwritten moral code. Maybe the powers that be at Walmart are doing the "right thing" according to their morals?



Businesses having different moral practices are fairly common. For example, Chick-fil-a versus McDonalds.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

KL is right, Chick-fil-a respects the cow, McDonalds slaughters it.



Oh, wait, you are probably talking about the "no work" on Sunday. Well, McDonalds does serve fish on Fridays (and every other day of the week).



Good thing we don't have to kill people for working the sabbath, like the Bible tells us to.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

ROFL, TJR sarcasm? No way, I thought such pettiness was beneath you :grin:



Is this another flare-up of your parental hubris? It's okay, calm down. Would you have given the same reply had Burger King been said in lieu of McDonald's.

Oh, wait, you are probably talking about the "no work" on Sunday. Well, McDonalds does serve fish on Fridays (and every other day of the week).

Cripes, it is the hubris again. It's the only possible explanation for such a lapse when you seem to pride yourself on being a moderate intellectual. (Take that as it was intended, or as you will)



You went outside the scope of rational discussion by bringing in the antiquated "law" of stoning people for working the Sabbath. The discussion was about moral codes which were a superset of our American laws, not about committing acts ILLEGAL in America per some ancient Jewish law.



:haveabeer:





:back2topic:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

KL,



Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was just trying to be a little playful. I was actually interested in what moral ground you felt Chic-fil-a has over (or different from) McDonalds. So, I took a playful guess.



TJR