Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Does Any Society Allow...

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

Any corporation that uses scare tactics more so than offering incentives is a form of slave driving.
If supervisors threaten a persons livelihood with empty threats and never actually commit to those threats and take any action, they are fear mongering.

If a tool is inadequate to do a job a consumer requires, the consumer will have to buy a tool that will do the job or find a way to use the tool to his efficiency by making upgrades accordingly. At no time does the consumer make the tool better by yelling at it and expecting it to work efficiently. Therefore that leaves the consumer with choosing one of the two options above.

I hate to compare people to tools but, if you can relate consumer to manger and tool to people you will understand my point.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage, offer incentives that are cheap for the company, and then expect to beat its employees emotions just because the employees are comfortable with it.
Without a form of incentive that motivates people to be more productive than a "scare tactic", the company is the one to blame for its lack of productivity not the employees.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 1:31:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.

Money.
Apathy.
Impotence in the face of the first two.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 1:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:31:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.

Money.
Apathy.
Impotence in the face of the first two.

So true.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 1:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Corporations are legal entities. They could not exist without the government. In-fact, municipalities are corporations.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 1:55:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:41:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Corporations are legal entities. They could not exist without the government. In-fact, municipalities are corporations.

Are you saying that the government is to blame as much as the corporations? Or are you just stating that the government has the ability to change the corporations incentive techniques?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 3:46:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:55:56 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:41:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Corporations are legal entities. They could not exist without the government. In-fact, municipalities are corporations.

Are you saying that the government is to blame as much as the corporations? Or are you just stating that the government has the ability to change the corporations incentive techniques?

Corporations are created by the government. They are a legal construct. They aren't some alien force invading which the government is valiantly struggling to defend us from. I would agree that they shouldn't exist.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 5:50:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Historically, corporations were created by a charter granted by government. Today, corporations are usually registered with the state, province, or national government and regulated by the laws enacted by that government. Registration is the main prerequisite to the corporation's assumption of limited liability. The law sometimes requires the corporation to designate its principal address, as well as a registered agent (a person or company designated to receive legal service of process). It may also be required to designate an agent or other legal representative of the corporation." taken from Wikipedia.

so no corporations are not government created in the present
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 6:17:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not that any of you have done this, but it always strikes me as profoundly sardonic that the people who hate corporations the most are the first ones to support the big government that permits such entities to (1) Exist and (2) Collude with said government, exploiting the taxpayers and unfairly precluding competition.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 6:27:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

It doesn't work because people don't care, not that these corporations have somehow made themselves too important or are somehow 'entangled' in peoples lives. The only things consumers don't have choice in is utilities.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 6:28:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 6:17:25 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Not that any of you have done this, but it always strikes me as profoundly sardonic that the people who hate corporations the most are the first ones to support the big government that permits such entities to (1) Exist and (2) Collude with said government, exploiting the taxpayers and unfairly precluding competition.

That's something I'm trying to find a way around. How can a community of workers in a corporation demand to be treated fairly without a union and without government involvement?
I can not think of any solid answers that are practical aside from exploiting the problem and hoping someone comes up with a good answer.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 11:19:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

I was referring to Walmart when I made the comment. Your brother can not speak for every Walmart store nor every Walmart associate. Each store has different managers the same way other corporations do.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.

You are ignoring my whole post to point out the obvious.
I never said low skilled jobs required more pay, I said they need better incentive than scare tactics. If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should get fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Do you not agree with that?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 11:20:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 12:00:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 11:19:05 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

I was referring to Walmart when I made the comment. Your brother can not speak for every Walmart store nor every Walmart associate. Each store has different managers the same way other corporations do.

Right. The basic point I am trying to make is I don't see much evidence of the big corporations over-working their employees. Doing this ultimately will lead to greater numbers of drop-outs anyway.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.

You are ignoring my whole post to point out the obvious.
I never said low skilled jobs required more pay, I said they need better incentive than scare tactics. If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should get fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Do you not agree with that?

Yes. However I think this is already the case. Most employers don't go around threatening the people they manage with firing. They just expect their employees the be productive and as long as they are productive there are no complaints.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 1:58:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.

Because society is looking at corporations from a completely different angle then you are. In a world where societies are completely separated from each other and mom and pops stores are the best way to get the goods you need, then corporations might be considered a bad thing. But that is not the world we live in. Corporations develop systems of efficiency that smaller businesses simply have no chance competing against. Without those corporations we as a country would no longer be able to compete with the rest of the world.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 5:45:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 5:50:41 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
"Historically, corporations were created by a charter granted by government. Today, corporations are usually registered with the state, province, or national government and regulated by the laws enacted by that government. Registration is the main prerequisite to the corporation's assumption of limited liability. The law sometimes requires the corporation to designate its principal address, as well as a registered agent (a person or company designated to receive legal service of process). It may also be required to designate an agent or other legal representative of the corporation." taken from Wikipedia.

so no corporations are not government created in the present

So people go to the government and say 'Hey! Can you create a fake person for me so that I can escape personal liability?' Then the government does it. That sounds like the government creating a corporation to me. Or can private individuals conjure up a legal homunculus without the aid of the state?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 5:51:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 5:45:50 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/2/2013 5:50:41 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
"Historically, corporations were created by a charter granted by government. Today, corporations are usually registered with the state, province, or national government and regulated by the laws enacted by that government. Registration is the main prerequisite to the corporation's assumption of limited liability. The law sometimes requires the corporation to designate its principal address, as well as a registered agent (a person or company designated to receive legal service of process). It may also be required to designate an agent or other legal representative of the corporation." taken from Wikipedia.

so no corporations are not government created in the present

So people go to the government and say 'Hey! Can you create a fake person for me so that I can escape personal liability?' Then the government does it. That sounds like the government creating a corporation to me. Or can private individuals conjure up a legal homunculus without the aid of the state?

no that's not at all what it means
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:04:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 12:00:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:19:05 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

I was referring to Walmart when I made the comment. Your brother can not speak for every Walmart store nor every Walmart associate. Each store has different managers the same way other corporations do.

Right. The basic point I am trying to make is I don't see much evidence of the big corporations over-working their employees. Doing this ultimately will lead to greater numbers of drop-outs anyway.

Have you ever looked for more evidence other than taking your brothers word? If what you say is true Walmart wouldn't have an organization like "Our Walmart" with so much momentum gained from Walmart associates.

http://forrespect.org...

I'm not saying this organization wouldn't exist if walmart treated its associates better, I'm saying that Walmart associates wouldn't be giving it as much validity if they didn't feel mistreated in one way or another.

Doing what is going to lead to more drop outs? Encouraging corporate social ethics?
Not to mention, drop outs can be successful in their own right.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.

You are ignoring my whole post to point out the obvious.
I never said low skilled jobs required more pay, I said they need better incentive than scare tactics. If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should get fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Do you not agree with that?

Yes. However I think this is already the case. Most employers don't go around threatening the people they manage with firing. They just expect their employees the be productive and as long as they are productive there are no complaints.

I have family that works at Walmart also. Their opinion contradicts yours. They claim Walmart consistently threatens everyone to meet the "time" given for their area or get coached. Yet nobody gets coached.
They claim that they can't go home until the job is done or they get coached, and are asked to take that overtime off on their lunch or they get coached, even though management is the one that gave them the "times" that exceeded their working hours. (i.e the task is scheduled 10.5 hours and the associate is only scheduled 8 working hours.)

At some point this management team is asking more work for the same pay from its associates at this store. I am told that this Walmart wont hire new people and have been told in meetings they want more production and less people for the same pay rate that its been using.

These managers also claim that their threats were ordered from their superiors (corporate office) which makes associates avoid calling corporate to explain their managers actions and come to a conclusion that solves the problem.

I have heard similar stories from friends in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama regarding Walmart. That's actually what inspired this post. I believe Walmart is taking advantage of our economic situation to "force labor" upon people, which they wouldn't do under an economy that demanded ethical actions.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:08:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:04:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 12:00:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:19:05 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

I was referring to Walmart when I made the comment. Your brother can not speak for every Walmart store nor every Walmart associate. Each store has different managers the same way other corporations do.

Right. The basic point I am trying to make is I don't see much evidence of the big corporations over-working their employees. Doing this ultimately will lead to greater numbers of drop-outs anyway.

Have you ever looked for more evidence other than taking your brothers word? If what you say is true Walmart wouldn't have an organization like "Our Walmart" with so much momentum gained from Walmart associates.

http://forrespect.org...

I'm not saying this organization wouldn't exist if walmart treated its associates better, I'm saying that Walmart associates wouldn't be giving it as much validity if they didn't feel mistreated in one way or another.

Doing what is going to lead to more drop outs? Encouraging corporate social ethics?
Not to mention, drop outs can be successful in their own right.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.

You are ignoring my whole post to point out the obvious.
I never said low skilled jobs required more pay, I said they need better incentive than scare tactics. If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should get fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Do you not agree with that?

Yes. However I think this is already the case. Most employers don't go around threatening the people they manage with firing. They just expect their employees the be productive and as long as they are productive there are no complaints.

I have family that works at Walmart also. Their opinion contradicts yours. They claim Walmart consistently threatens everyone to meet the "time" given for their area or get coached. Yet nobody gets coached.
They claim that they can't go home until the job is done or they get coached, and are asked to take that overtime off on their lunch or they get coached, even though management is the one that gave them the "times" that exceeded their working hours. (i.e the task is scheduled 10.5 hours and the associate is only scheduled 8 working hours.)

At some point this management team is asking more work for the same pay from its associates at this store. I am told that this Walmart wont hire new people and have been told in meetings they want more production and less people for the same pay rate that its been using.

These managers also claim that their threats were ordered from their superiors (corporate office) which makes associates avoid calling corporate to explain their managers actions and come to a conclusion that solves the problem.

I have heard similar stories from friends in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama regarding Walmart. That's actually what inspired this post. I believe Walmart is taking advantage of our economic situation to "force labor" upon people, which they wouldn't do under an economy that demanded ethical actions.

you are so ignorant. I know I wasn't the person who you were talking too but he said Most employers don't do that. that's the key word. most doesn't mean all dumb@ss
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:09:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 1:58:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.

Because society is looking at corporations from a completely different angle then you are. In a world where societies are completely separated from each other and mom and pops stores are the best way to get the goods you need, then corporations might be considered a bad thing. But that is not the world we live in. Corporations develop systems of efficiency that smaller businesses simply have no chance competing against. Without those corporations we as a country would no longer be able to compete with the rest of the world.

I am not saying all corporate actions are bad, I'm asking why we allow corporations to thrive when they treat people poorly. Just because their work model is efficient, it does not give them a right to threaten peoples livelihood continuously. Ether let the person go, or give them a way to do the job to the standard the model expects.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:13:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:04:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 12:00:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:19:05 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

I was referring to Walmart when I made the comment. Your brother can not speak for every Walmart store nor every Walmart associate. Each store has different managers the same way other corporations do.

Right. The basic point I am trying to make is I don't see much evidence of the big corporations over-working their employees. Doing this ultimately will lead to greater numbers of drop-outs anyway.

Have you ever looked for more evidence other than taking your brothers word? If what you say is true Walmart wouldn't have an organization like "Our Walmart" with so much momentum gained from Walmart associates.

http://forrespect.org...

I'm not saying this organization wouldn't exist if walmart treated its associates better, I'm saying that Walmart associates wouldn't be giving it as much validity if they didn't feel mistreated in one way or another.

Doing what is going to lead to more drop outs? Encouraging corporate social ethics?
Not to mention, drop outs can be successful in their own right.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.

You are ignoring my whole post to point out the obvious.
I never said low skilled jobs required more pay, I said they need better incentive than scare tactics. If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should get fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Do you not agree with that?

Yes. However I think this is already the case. Most employers don't go around threatening the people they manage with firing. They just expect their employees the be productive and as long as they are productive there are no complaints.

I have family that works at Walmart also. Their opinion contradicts yours. They claim Walmart consistently threatens everyone to meet the "time" given for their area or get coached. Yet nobody gets coached.
They claim that they can't go home until the job is done or they get coached, and are asked to take that overtime off on their lunch or they get coached, even though management is the one that gave them the "times" that exceeded their working hours. (i.e the task is scheduled 10.5 hours and the associate is only scheduled 8 working hours.)

At some point this management team is asking more work for the same pay from its associates at this store. I am told that this Walmart wont hire new people and have been told in meetings they want more production and less people for the same pay rate that its been using.

These managers also claim that their threats were ordered from their superiors (corporate office) which makes associates avoid calling corporate to explain their managers actions and come to a conclusion that solves the problem.

I have heard similar stories from friends in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama regarding Walmart. That's actually what inspired this post. I believe Walmart is taking advantage of our economic situation to "force labor" upon people, which they wouldn't do under an economy that demanded ethical actions.

you are so ignorant. I know I wasn't the person who you were talking too but he said Most employers don't do that. that's the key word. most doesn't mean all dumb@ss

If these threats really are coming from corporate wouldn't that be all Walmarts? Even still your unintelligent post brings no enlightening effects to this topic. Thanks for being a moron though =D
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:16:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:13:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:04:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 12:00:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:19:05 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

I was referring to Walmart when I made the comment. Your brother can not speak for every Walmart store nor every Walmart associate. Each store has different managers the same way other corporations do.

Right. The basic point I am trying to make is I don't see much evidence of the big corporations over-working their employees. Doing this ultimately will lead to greater numbers of drop-outs anyway.

Have you ever looked for more evidence other than taking your brothers word? If what you say is true Walmart wouldn't have an organization like "Our Walmart" with so much momentum gained from Walmart associates.

http://forrespect.org...

I'm not saying this organization wouldn't exist if walmart treated its associates better, I'm saying that Walmart associates wouldn't be giving it as much validity if they didn't feel mistreated in one way or another.

Doing what is going to lead to more drop outs? Encouraging corporate social ethics?
Not to mention, drop outs can be successful in their own right.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.

You are ignoring my whole post to point out the obvious.
I never said low skilled jobs required more pay, I said they need better incentive than scare tactics. If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should get fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Do you not agree with that?

Yes. However I think this is already the case. Most employers don't go around threatening the people they manage with firing. They just expect their employees the be productive and as long as they are productive there are no complaints.

I have family that works at Walmart also. Their opinion contradicts yours. They claim Walmart consistently threatens everyone to meet the "time" given for their area or get coached. Yet nobody gets coached.
They claim that they can't go home until the job is done or they get coached, and are asked to take that overtime off on their lunch or they get coached, even though management is the one that gave them the "times" that exceeded their working hours. (i.e the task is scheduled 10.5 hours and the associate is only scheduled 8 working hours.)

At some point this management team is asking more work for the same pay from its associates at this store. I am told that this Walmart wont hire new people and have been told in meetings they want more production and less people for the same pay rate that its been using.

These managers also claim that their threats were ordered from their superiors (corporate office) which makes associates avoid calling corporate to explain their managers actions and come to a conclusion that solves the problem.

I have heard similar stories from friends in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama regarding Walmart. That's actually what inspired this post. I believe Walmart is taking advantage of our economic situation to "force labor" upon people, which they wouldn't do under an economy that demanded ethical actions.

you are so ignorant. I know I wasn't the person who you were talking too but he said Most employers don't do that. that's the key word. most doesn't mean all dumb@ss

If these threats really are coming from corporate wouldn't that be all Walmarts? Even still your unintelligent post brings no enlightening effects to this topic. Thanks for being a moron though =D

if these threats come from a corporate level actually no it wouldn't be all walmarts. it would probably have the country split up into districts and a section would control a certain amount of districts. who's the moron now b!tch
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:32:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:16:59 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:13:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:04:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 12:00:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:19:05 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

I was referring to Walmart when I made the comment. Your brother can not speak for every Walmart store nor every Walmart associate. Each store has different managers the same way other corporations do.

Right. The basic point I am trying to make is I don't see much evidence of the big corporations over-working their employees. Doing this ultimately will lead to greater numbers of drop-outs anyway.

Have you ever looked for more evidence other than taking your brothers word? If what you say is true Walmart wouldn't have an organization like "Our Walmart" with so much momentum gained from Walmart associates.

http://forrespect.org...

I'm not saying this organization wouldn't exist if walmart treated its associates better, I'm saying that Walmart associates wouldn't be giving it as much validity if they didn't feel mistreated in one way or another.

Doing what is going to lead to more drop outs? Encouraging corporate social ethics?
Not to mention, drop outs can be successful in their own right.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.

You are ignoring my whole post to point out the obvious.
I never said low skilled jobs required more pay, I said they need better incentive than scare tactics. If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should get fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Do you not agree with that?

Yes. However I think this is already the case. Most employers don't go around threatening the people they manage with firing. They just expect their employees the be productive and as long as they are productive there are no complaints.

I have family that works at Walmart also. Their opinion contradicts yours. They claim Walmart consistently threatens everyone to meet the "time" given for their area or get coached. Yet nobody gets coached.
They claim that they can't go home until the job is done or they get coached, and are asked to take that overtime off on their lunch or they get coached, even though management is the one that gave them the "times" that exceeded their working hours. (i.e the task is scheduled 10.5 hours and the associate is only scheduled 8 working hours.)

At some point this management team is asking more work for the same pay from its associates at this store. I am told that this Walmart wont hire new people and have been told in meetings they want more production and less people for the same pay rate that its been using.

These managers also claim that their threats were ordered from their superiors (corporate office) which makes associates avoid calling corporate to explain their managers actions and come to a conclusion that solves the problem.

I have heard similar stories from friends in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama regarding Walmart. That's actually what inspired this post. I believe Walmart is taking advantage of our economic situation to "force labor" upon people, which they wouldn't do under an economy that demanded ethical actions.

you are so ignorant. I know I wasn't the person who you were talking too but he said Most employers don't do that. that's the key word. most doesn't mean all dumb@ss

If these threats really are coming from corporate wouldn't that be all Walmarts? Even still your unintelligent post brings no enlightening effects to this topic. Thanks for being a moron though =D

if these threats come from a corporate level actually no it wouldn't be all walmarts. it would probably have the country split up into districts and a section would control a certain amount of districts. who's the moron now b!tch

Take out the insults and I might consider your insight as something more than just naive babbling. Until then I will perceive what you have to say as irrelevant because you sound like your 10.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:46:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:32:41 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:16:59 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:13:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:04:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 12:00:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:19:05 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

I was referring to Walmart when I made the comment. Your brother can not speak for every Walmart store nor every Walmart associate. Each store has different managers the same way other corporations do.

Right. The basic point I am trying to make is I don't see much evidence of the big corporations over-working their employees. Doing this ultimately will lead to greater numbers of drop-outs anyway.

Have you ever looked for more evidence other than taking your brothers word? If what you say is true Walmart wouldn't have an organization like "Our Walmart" with so much momentum gained from Walmart associates.

http://forrespect.org...

I'm not saying this organization wouldn't exist if walmart treated its associates better, I'm saying that Walmart associates wouldn't be giving it as much validity if they didn't feel mistreated in one way or another.

Doing what is going to lead to more drop outs? Encouraging corporate social ethics?
Not to mention, drop outs can be successful in their own right.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.

You are ignoring my whole post to point out the obvious.
I never said low skilled jobs required more pay, I said they need better incentive than scare tactics. If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should get fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Do you not agree with that?

Yes. However I think this is already the case. Most employers don't go around threatening the people they manage with firing. They just expect their employees the be productive and as long as they are productive there are no complaints.

I have family that works at Walmart also. Their opinion contradicts yours. They claim Walmart consistently threatens everyone to meet the "time" given for their area or get coached. Yet nobody gets coached.
They claim that they can't go home until the job is done or they get coached, and are asked to take that overtime off on their lunch or they get coached, even though management is the one that gave them the "times" that exceeded their working hours. (i.e the task is scheduled 10.5 hours and the associate is only scheduled 8 working hours.)

At some point this management team is asking more work for the same pay from its associates at this store. I am told that this Walmart wont hire new people and have been told in meetings they want more production and less people for the same pay rate that its been using.

These managers also claim that their threats were ordered from their superiors (corporate office) which makes associates avoid calling corporate to explain their managers actions and come to a conclusion that solves the problem.

I have heard similar stories from friends in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama regarding Walmart. That's actually what inspired this post. I believe Walmart is taking advantage of our economic situation to "force labor" upon people, which they wouldn't do under an economy that demanded ethical actions.

you are so ignorant. I know I wasn't the person who you were talking too but he said Most employers don't do that. that's the key word. most doesn't mean all dumb@ss

If these threats really are coming from corporate wouldn't that be all Walmarts? Even still your unintelligent post brings no enlightening effects to this topic. Thanks for being a moron though =D

if these threats come from a corporate level actually no it wouldn't be all walmarts. it would probably have the country split up into districts and a section would control a certain amount of districts. who's the moron now b!tch

Take out the insults and I might consider your insight as something more than just naive babbling. Until then I will perceive what you have to say as irrelevant because you sound like your 10.

I am fifteen and i haven't quite woken up yet, so do forgive my attitude.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 7:02:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:46:52 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:32:41 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:16:59 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:13:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:04:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 12:00:55 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:19:05 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:00:23 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:59:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:50:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.
I'm also interested in; if there is anything a society can do aside from boycotting these large corporations, seeing as that does not seem to work due to some of these companies entanglement in peoples every day lives?

Regardless of how irrational you think I sound when I say that, unless you or your coworkers are constantly made to work harder by threats of losing your job you can't relate completely.

My brother works for Walmart and he doesn't receive any threats or is made to work harder.

Your brother can't speak for every store.

Walmart is supposed to be the hallmark of a big corporation that underpays its employees. Exactly what corporations do you have in mind?

I was referring to Walmart when I made the comment. Your brother can not speak for every Walmart store nor every Walmart associate. Each store has different managers the same way other corporations do.

Right. The basic point I am trying to make is I don't see much evidence of the big corporations over-working their employees. Doing this ultimately will lead to greater numbers of drop-outs anyway.

Have you ever looked for more evidence other than taking your brothers word? If what you say is true Walmart wouldn't have an organization like "Our Walmart" with so much momentum gained from Walmart associates.

http://forrespect.org...

I'm not saying this organization wouldn't exist if walmart treated its associates better, I'm saying that Walmart associates wouldn't be giving it as much validity if they didn't feel mistreated in one way or another.

Doing what is going to lead to more drop outs? Encouraging corporate social ethics?
Not to mention, drop outs can be successful in their own right.

A corporation should not start people out at minimum wage,

It depends on whether the labor is high skill or not.

If complaints are being made about job performance it's due to lack of skill or lack of incentive or both. Either way a change would be needed.

What I mean is that some jobs require a lot of skill (schooling, training, etc) so only a few people can do them (programming, nursing, engineering), and others require little skill so just about anybody can do them (cashier, waiter, etc). Jobs with low skill can expect low pay.

You are ignoring my whole post to point out the obvious.
I never said low skilled jobs required more pay, I said they need better incentive than scare tactics. If an employer is not satisfied with an employees work they should get fire the employee or give the employee motivation to do the job to the bosses satisfaction without fear mongering.
Do you not agree with that?

Yes. However I think this is already the case. Most employers don't go around threatening the people they manage with firing. They just expect their employees the be productive and as long as they are productive there are no complaints.

I have family that works at Walmart also. Their opinion contradicts yours. They claim Walmart consistently threatens everyone to meet the "time" given for their area or get coached. Yet nobody gets coached.
They claim that they can't go home until the job is done or they get coached, and are asked to take that overtime off on their lunch or they get coached, even though management is the one that gave them the "times" that exceeded their working hours. (i.e the task is scheduled 10.5 hours and the associate is only scheduled 8 working hours.)

At some point this management team is asking more work for the same pay from its associates at this store. I am told that this Walmart wont hire new people and have been told in meetings they want more production and less people for the same pay rate that its been using.

These managers also claim that their threats were ordered from their superiors (corporate office) which makes associates avoid calling corporate to explain their managers actions and come to a conclusion that solves the problem.

I have heard similar stories from friends in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama regarding Walmart. That's actually what inspired this post. I believe Walmart is taking advantage of our economic situation to "force labor" upon people, which they wouldn't do under an economy that demanded ethical actions.

you are so ignorant. I know I wasn't the person who you were talking too but he said Most employers don't do that. that's the key word. most doesn't mean all dumb@ss

If these threats really are coming from corporate wouldn't that be all Walmarts? Even still your unintelligent post brings no enlightening effects to this topic. Thanks for being a moron though =D

if these threats come from a corporate level actually no it wouldn't be all walmarts. it would probably have the country split up into districts and a section would control a certain amount of districts. who's the moron now b!tch

Take out the insults and I might consider your insight as something more than just naive babbling. Until then I will perceive what you have to say as irrelevant because you sound like your 10.

I am fifteen and i haven't quite woken up yet, so do forgive my attitude.

No problem, your age has no affect on your ability to speak your mind clearly and effectively unless you allow it =).

I do understand your previous comment, and yes Walmart does have multiple districts as do most companies that have a nationwide business of a certain scale.
The problem is perception, if associates in a district are speaking of mistreatment, they begin to feel it is all walmarts because they can't get information (or aren't looking) outside of their district.

I doubt that Georgia and Ohio are in the same district but maybe Alabama and Georgia are.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 12:24:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:04:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
I have family that works at Walmart also. Their opinion contradicts yours. They claim Walmart consistently threatens everyone to meet the "time" given for their area or get coached. Yet nobody gets coached.

This is common is any business. Employers expect productivity from their staff, that is why they pay them. Their will always be many different personality types to deal with in the workforce whether you are a manager or employee. After a while you get to know them very well. What you're describing is what I call the "bark but don't bite" type. They threaten and act tough because they are compensating for the fact that they have no idea how to motivate people.

They claim that they can't go home until the job is done or they get coached, and are asked to take that overtime off on their lunch or they get coached, even though management is the one that gave them the "times" that exceeded their working hours. (i.e the task is scheduled 10.5 hours and the associate is only scheduled 8 working hours.)

That is absolutely false, or at least if it is happening it is the individual managers doing that, not the company. I worked for Wal-Mart for 8 years and left as an assistant store manager. If I did that I would be fired. In fact as a department manager sometimes I would clock out and get back to work because I was so desperate to finish what I had on my plate (mostly self imposed). I had to hide from the managers in fear that they would catch me working off the clock.

At some point this management team is asking more work for the same pay from its associates at this store. I am told that this Walmart wont hire new people and have been told in meetings they want more production and less people for the same pay rate that its been using.

This is not Wal-Mart, it's business. The rate and expectations of labor is dictated by the labor market. If you own a business and have people knocking on you door to work for you who would do a better job then your current employees then you would do the same.

These managers also claim that their threats were ordered from their superiors (corporate office) which makes associates avoid calling corporate to explain their managers actions and come to a conclusion that solves the problem.

Again false. The home office would have nothing to do with that. Someone is making stuff up and if the company finds this to be true they will be fired. Because of Wal-Mart's size the company is under much more scrutiny then say, Foot locker. Any little violation in an area like this, and it would be all over the papers and anti Wal-Mart groups would jump all over it.

I have heard similar stories from friends in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama regarding Walmart. That's actually what inspired this post. I believe Walmart is taking advantage of our economic situation to "force labor" upon people, which they wouldn't do under an economy that demanded ethical actions.

Again, what you are complaining about is not Wal-mart, it's capitalism. I will say though that most Wal-Mart stores are very big, and when you have that many people chatting amongst themselves they come up with some wild and crazy interpretations of what is actually happening. We always had some yo-yo claiming that we were doing something like this, even if it was not even close to the truth.

I would actually say my experience with the company has helped me to understand the dynamic of conspiracy theories very well. People like to share stories and dramatize them. Others then "collect" these over-dramatized stories and put them together in a way that tells the story they want it to. A store so big with so many people becomes one huge playground for these people and because of how interesting and seemingly factually supported these fabricated stories get, they become very convincing. It's really quite amazing to watch.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 12:33:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:09:12 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 5/3/2013 1:58:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/2/2013 1:14:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why Does Any Society Allow corporate slave drivers into their communities.

Because society is looking at corporations from a completely different angle then you are. In a world where societies are completely separated from each other and mom and pops stores are the best way to get the goods you need, then corporations might be considered a bad thing. But that is not the world we live in. Corporations develop systems of efficiency that smaller businesses simply have no chance competing against. Without those corporations we as a country would no longer be able to compete with the rest of the world.

I am not saying all corporate actions are bad, I'm asking why we allow corporations to thrive when they treat people poorly. Just because their work model is efficient, it does not give them a right to threaten peoples livelihood continuously. Ether let the person go, or give them a way to do the job to the standard the model expects.

It's not a matter of us allowing corporations to do anything. We have laws, corporations have to follow them like anyone else. Plenty of small businesses treat their employees just as bad or even worse, you just don't hear about them because they are too small for anyone to care.

You say they shouldn't have a right to threaten people livelihoods, yes they should. Employers have to compete for their work force just the same as they do with their customers. If you treat employees bad enough then they will leave. If they stay then they will be very unhappy and thus unproductive. Each business needs to balance discipline with positive motivation to be successful. That can be very difficult and will almost always result in someone claiming they treat people poorly. Big companies have such a large workforce that the raw number of people that will make this claim is often seen as very big, even if it is just a small percentage.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 1:20:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 12:24:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:04:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
I have family that works at Walmart also. Their opinion contradicts yours. They claim Walmart consistently threatens everyone to meet the "time" given for their area or get coached. Yet nobody gets coached.

This is common is any business. Employers expect productivity from their staff, that is why they pay them. Their will always be many different personality types to deal with in the workforce whether you are a manager or employee. After a while you get to know them very well. What you're describing is what I call the "bark but don't bite" type. They threaten and act tough because they are compensating for the fact that they have no idea how to motivate people.

At what point should we as a society allow any corporation to treat people like animals who don't work hard enough for their food?

They claim that they can't go home until the job is done or they get coached, and are asked to take that overtime off on their lunch or they get coached, even though management is the one that gave them the "times" that exceeded their working hours. (i.e the task is scheduled 10.5 hours and the associate is only scheduled 8 working hours.)

That is absolutely false, or at least if it is happening it is the individual managers doing that, not the company. I worked for Wal-Mart for 8 years and left as an assistant store manager. If I did that I would be fired.

You can't say for a fact this isn't happening. How can you be so certain that it's not the company? Because Walmart follows rules and regulations so well? I can prove otherwise if you need me to.
If you did that you deserve to be fired, as well as anyone who asked you to act in that manner.

In fact as a department manager sometimes I would clock out and get back to work because I was so desperate to finish what I had on my plate (mostly self imposed). I had to hide from the managers in fear that they would catch me working off the clock.
If you felt the need to work without getting paid in fear of getting disciplined at any point in time at Walmart, you're only helping to prove my point.


At some point this management team is asking more work for the same pay from its associates at this store. I am told that this Walmart wont hire new people and have been told in meetings they want more production and less people for the same pay rate that its been using.

This is not Wal-Mart, it's business. The rate and expectations of labor is dictated by the labor market. If you own a business and have people knocking on you door to work for you who would do a better job then your current employees then you would do the same.

These managers also claim that their threats were ordered from their superiors (corporate office) which makes associates avoid calling corporate to explain their managers actions and come to a conclusion that solves the problem.

Again false. The home office would have nothing to do with that. Someone is making stuff up and if the company finds this to be true they will be fired. Because of Wal-Mart's size the company is under much more scrutiny then say, Foot locker. Any little violation in an area like this, and it would be all over the papers and anti Wal-Mart groups would jump all over it.

Again, you can't be 100% certain that the corporate office isn't giving the orders. Anti Walmart groups are jumping on this stuff. http://www.thenation.com...

I have heard similar stories from friends in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama regarding Walmart. That's actually what inspired this post. I believe Walmart is taking advantage of our economic situation to "force labor" upon people, which they wouldn't do under an economy that demanded ethical actions.

Again, what you are complaining about is not Wal-mart, it's capitalism. I will say though that most Wal-Mart stores are very big, and when you have that many people chatting amongst themselves they come up with some wild and crazy interpretations of what is actually happening. We always had some yo-yo claiming that we were doing something like this, even if it was not even close to the truth.

If what I claimed is true, do you think it should be tolerated regardless of if it is 1 company or all of them?

I would actually say my experience with the company has helped me to understand the dynamic of conspiracy theories very well. People like to share stories and dramatize them. Others then "collect" these over-dramatized stories and put them together in a way that tells the story they want it to. A store so big with so many people becomes one huge playground for these people and because of how interesting and seemingly factually supported these fabricated stories get, they become very convincing. It's really quite amazing to watch.

Regardless of what you think happened, this is the internet and nothing is true without substantial proof. Seeing as I have no proof to offer other than hear say, you can either take my word that I am informed by credible sources, or you can write off what I say is fiction. It makes no difference to me whether you believe the actions happened or not. I want to know if you think society should be accepting of those actions if they exist.