National Citizens Coalition is a Sham

[shoop]

Its true that unions are monopolies within a workplace, but workers can de-certify or choose other unions.  Also, its much more difficult to form a union.  Ask the workers of Wal-Mart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love Wal-mart's reply to the unionization. If working here is soooooo bad why do so many people apply whenever we open a new store?

Unions are being dumbass in targeting Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart does everything to be ultra-low cost. They fly their execs coach and make them stay in budget hotels. They encourage suppliers to lower costs as much as possible (still thousands of new suppliers breaking down their doors trying to get in.)

The union movement is wrong-headed in targeting Wal-Mart for recruitment drives.

The company cannot compete with a unionzed labour force. That is why they fight any attempts at unionization tooth and nail.

[Guest eureka]

"Whenevervw we open a new storY" is just about it" The Golden Goose come to town - and you believe it. Hard boiled eggs is what you will get.

[shoop]

"Whenevervw we open a new storY" is just about it" The Golden Goose come to town - and you believe it. Hard boiled eggs is what you will get.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you this much of a freak in real life?

[August1991]

If you invest, you are accorded legal protection as a limited liability corporation.

Such legal protection for shareholders is no way comparable to the legally sanctioned right to form a cartel.

Limited liability is comparable to bankruptcy laws and overcomes a severe problem of information and risk in capital markets. Would you deposit money in a bank if it meant that you could lose your house?

With that said, I can understand why employees in a one-company town might want to form a union. I can also understand why employees might want to designate and agent to negotiate on their behalf.

[Argus]

Its true that unions are monopolies within a workplace, but workers can de-certify or choose other unions.  Also, its much more difficult to form a union.  Ask the workers of Wal-Mart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love Wal-mart's reply to the unionization. If working here is soooooo bad why do so many people apply whenever we open a new store?

Uhm, because there is high unemployment among low skilled workers? And so many who have little hope think that with hundreds being hired, maybe even they stand a chance?

Unions are being dumbass in targeting Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart does everything to be ultra-low cost. They fly their execs coach and make them stay in budget hotels. They encourage suppliers to lower costs as much as possible (still thousands of new suppliers breaking down their doors trying to get in.)

Junior execs fly coach. Senior execs have private jets. Suppliers try to get in because Wal-mart is so huge that to be sold there means massive exposure across the country.

The company cannot compete with a unionzed labour force. That is why they fight any attempts at unionization tooth and nail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet, oddly, Costco pais its workers something like 3 times the salary of Wal-Mart, with better benefits, to boot. And it still has lower prices. Why do you suppose that is?

Wal-Mart treats its workers like crap (also it's customers and junior managers). It abuses every labour rule in the book to help turn high profits. And don't kid yourself. It makes huge profits. Which is why its owners are multi-billionaires.

It fights to keep unions out not because it can't compete but because it would have to start treating their employees with a modicum of respect. The company's philosophy is one of absolute power over all things. The owners are arch conservatives and are offended by the notion that anyone should be able to tell them anything about what to do with their business. Treating and paying its employees would also cut into profits, of course. There would still be profits, but they wouldn't be quite so high.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a conservative and a capitalist. But Wal-Mart demonstrates almost everything wrong about Capitalism. It is a lousy organizatoin to work for, to work with, to supply or to have in your town. It is bad for business, and bad for communities. You could even make the case it is bad for the country, as it gets most of its goods in China, and strongly encourages its suppliers with local factories to transfer manufacturing offshore.

I never shop at Wal-Mart. I encourage everyone I know to avoid the place.

[Riverwind]

Don't get me wrong. I'm a conservative and a capitalist. But Wal-Mart demonstrates almost everything wrong about Capitalism. It is a lousy organizatoin to work for, to work with, to supply or to have in your town. It is bad for business, and bad for communities. You could even make the case it is bad for the country, as it gets most of its goods in China, and strongly encourages its suppliers with local factories to transfer manufacturing offshore.

Generally, I dislike unions because I feel their non-monetary contract demands are frequently unreasonable (contracting out, strict job rules, seniority, etc). However, Walmart has convinced me that unions have a place in our society even if they can be annoying. I believe that Walmart treats its workers better because they know if they really treated them like dirt then they would unionise and no amount of intimidation by Walmart managers would stop them. If the threat of unionization did not exist then Walmart would be an even worse employer.

What I would like to see is some limits on the types of things a union can ask for in a contract. If a union feels it deserves a monopoly on work done by the company then it should give something up in return. For example, if the company decides that some work could be done more effectively by contracting out then the company should be allowed to. If the union wants to keep the jobs then it can always join the competitive bid process like everyone else. I am sure that many employers would pay more to keep the same workers on the job if the price was in line with the costs of an outside provider.

[Toro]

Don't get me wrong. I'm a conservative and a capitalist. But Wal-Mart demonstrates almost everything wrong about Capitalism. It is a lousy organizatoin to work for, to work with, to supply or to have in your town. It is bad for business, and bad for communities. You could even make the case it is bad for the country, as it gets most of its goods in China, and strongly encourages its suppliers with local factories to transfer manufacturing offshore.

I never shop at Wal-Mart. I encourage everyone I know to avoid the place.

I'd rather not shop at WalMart, but that's because its too crowded.

There are legitimate criticisms, as there are with any huge organization, but Wal-Mart has had an enormous influence on retailing in America. Besides being a fabulously run company - unlike most retailers - remember what they do - they focus on getting costs down as much as possible. Who does this benefit? The rich? Hardly. The demographics of the people who shop at Wal-Mart run from the middle to lower classes. The lower socioeconomic classes spend proporationally more of their paycheque at Wal-Mart than any other income strata. It is they who benefit the most from Wal-Mart (apart from the Walton family!)

[Shady]

Organizations like this one, the Fraser Institute, and others of a similiar vein should be closed down, as they are not in the public interest.

This type of language really scares me. Are you seriously in favour of organizations being shut down if they're not in the "public interest"? And who decides what exactly is in and not in this "public interest' of yours? Let me guess, people like you. Hitler would be very proud.

[shoop]

This type of language really scares me.  Are you seriously in favour of organizations being shut down if they're not in the "public interest"?  And who decides what exactly is in and not in this "public interest' of yours?  Let me guess, people like you.  Hitler would be very proud.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, if it is an organization that is offensive to the left there is no problem with their elite deciding what is good and bad for people.

Also gotta remember fascist analogies are only allowed to be used about the political right.

[Shady]

Hey, if it is an organization that is offensive to the left there is no problem with their elite deciding what is good and bad for people.

Also gotta remember fascist analogies are only allowed to be used about the political right.

You're exactly right, on both points. However, I'm not sure why the left is so opposed to Hilter and fascism, they have no problem implementing some of those ideas.

[Argus]

There are legitimate criticisms, as there are with any huge organization, but Wal-Mart has had an enormous influence on retailing in America.  Besides being a fabulously run company - unlike most retailers - remember what they do - they focus on getting costs down as much as possible.  Who does this benefit?  The rich?  Hardly.  The demographics of the people who shop at Wal-Mart run from the middle to lower classes.  The lower socioeconomic classes spend proporationally more of their paycheque at Wal-Mart than any other income strata.  It is they who benefit the most from Wal-Mart (apart from the Walton family!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are also the group which is disproportionately punished when a goliath like Wal-Mart moves in and provides low wage, no benefit, no security part time jobs to replace the slightly better wages, slightly better benefts, much better security full time jobs of the smaller shops and businesses which go bankrupt because of them. And the group which suffers because Wal-mart strong arms the owners of local manufacturing facilities to move their manufacturing offshore. And Wal-Mart prices aren't all that impressive anyway, especially considering the generally low quality merchandise it sells. You can usually find as good or better at other stores if you look. Wal-Mart, like IBM, is great at marketing, and convincing people it's the best. But it treats its customers as lousy as it does its staff, with narrow aisles, long waits at cashiers, and often crappy merchandise that falls apart quickly.

[Argus]

Organizations like this one, the Fraser Institute, and others of a similiar vein should be closed down, as they are not in the public interest.

This type of language really scares me. Are you seriously in favour of organizations being shut down if they're not in the "public interest"? And who decides what exactly is in and not in this "public interest' of yours? Let me guess, people like you. Hitler would be very proud.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You gotta remember this is coming from a guy who says that if you're opposed to same sex marriage you don't qualify as human.