Wallmart Says Don't Vote Democrat

tabs · 08-01-2008, 02:12 PM

Wow the company that let the Clintons use their corporate jet in 92 has said, Nyet to Obama and the Dems.They are claiming that with the Dems in power there will be increased Unionization. That means no more cheap Chinese ***** from Wallmart...as the cost of Wallmarts labour will increase and be passed on to the consumer.

tabs · 08-01-2008, 02:13 PM

Ohhh BTW...what have I bin tellin you Boyz....Monetary, Corporate, Wallstreet and the military guys don't like Obama.

speedracing944 · speedracing944's Garage

Well since I hate Bigbox-Mart where does that leave me?

Speedy

Superman · 08-01-2008, 02:28 PM

Indeed. I started a related thread today.

Wal-Mart has good reason for concern. The National Labor Relations Act was written to allow workers to make a relatively unencumbered decision regarding unionization. In the Act are certain prohibitions for management. They are prohibited from discriminating against workers because of their unionization activities. For example, they are not allowed to simply announce that workers who are sympathetic to a union will be terminated. The current "administration" has effectively gotten rid of those prohibitions. Under President Obama, Wal-Mart will be required to recognize unionization where that unionization is selected by the workers. In other words, it will be a fair fight. Workers will be permitted to choose whether to unionize or not. Like the Act says.

tabs · 08-01-2008, 02:36 PM

"Like the Act says." Superman......No more cheap Chinese ***** from Wallmart. It will become expensive Chinese ***** from Wallmart.

teenerted1 · 08-01-2008, 02:45 PM

unions or walmart which has been the biggest downfall in the american manufacturing ability?

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by teenerted1

unions or walmart which has been the biggest downfall in the american manufacturing ability?

yes

BGCarrera32 · 08-01-2008, 02:56 PM

Unions. Walmart is *thee* place for buttwipe, oil, and target ammo.

Superman · 08-01-2008, 03:00 PM

It would be easy to guess at the degree of sympathy I have for Wal-Mart.

dd74 · 08-01-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

Indeed. I started a related thread today.

Wal-Mart has good reason for concern. The National Labor Relations Act was written to allow workers to make a relatively unencumbered decision regarding unionization. In the Act are certain prohibitions for management. They are prohibited from discriminating against workers because of their unionization activities. For example, they are not allowed to simply announce that workers who are sympathetic to a union will be terminated. The current "administration" has effectively gotten rid of those prohibitions. Under President Obama, Wal-Mart will be required to recognize unionization where that unionization is selected by the workers. In other words, it will be a fair fight. Workers will be permitted to choose whether to unionize or not. Like the Act says.

O.K., but how will that insure that more American jobs won't go overseas? In my view, Americans can unionize all they want, but if there are no jobs, what's the point?

As far as Wal Mart stating don't vote for Obama, that's fine. American corporations have endorsed candidates for decades, if not centuries.

Superman · 08-01-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teenerted1

unions or walmart which has been the biggest downfall in the american manufacturing ability?

Both, of course. And looking at the bigger picture, the economy, will we be able to blame unions for consumers not having purchasing power?

Superman · 08-01-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd74

O.K., but how will that insure that more American jobs won't go overseas? In my view, Americans can unionize all they want, but if there are no jobs, what's the point?

As far as Wal Mart stating don't vote for Obama, that's fine. American corporations have endorsed candidates for decades, if not centuries.

Yes, this is a good point. Globalization of markets does not bode well for America. But to a large degree, these are different issues. Connecting them for the purpose of arguing for reductions in real wages for Americans may be the preferred argument from corporations, but should not pass the "straight face test" in citizens' discussions. Clever justification, but amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

dd74 · 08-01-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

Yes, this is a good point. Globalization of markets does not bode well for America. But to a large degree, these are different issues. Connecting them for the purpose of arguing for reductions in real wages for Americans may be the preferred argument from corporations, but should not pass the "straight face test" in citizens' discussions. Clever justification, but amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Great point, Supes. But that begs the question: what is a fair wage? How can a group of employees and a corporation come to that conclusion w/o a union?

Here's what I'd like to know: of the foreign car manufacturers with factories in the U.S., Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Subaru, etc., do any of them refuse to allow unions in house? Is it legal for them to say "no," because they are a foreign company?

And if they do refuse unions, what's the pay scale for their employees? Is it comparable to a GM, Ford or Chrysler employee?