Captain's Quarters -

Too bad about this story.

If only it weren't true, it would be perfect for The Onion.

Fortunately for the unions and their supporters, they long ago lost the ability to feel shame.

It would have been perfect for the Onion if they had hired illegal aliens. Jobs Americans won't do indeed.

Of course the carpenter's union doesn't provide job training for the picketers. Why would they want to add more low-cost labor to their own job market and depress their own wages?

Bullet, meet foot.

meanwhile the unions give millions to the dems who then champion open borders, such that painters in SF bay area get about the same pay as they did in the early 80's.

In a related development, Harry Reid has announced his intention to outsource Democratic Senators from AA workshops and halfway houses for his next all-night session.

Prizes will be awarded to observers who can tell the difference.

"The ironies here are so think that one could cut them with a labor-produced knife." - Ed

I think you perhaps meant 'so thick' - and 'that one could NOT cut them' ??

Meet the new boss, same as... oh, never mind.

I wonder if these "temporary workers" will list "Professional Picketer" on their resumes or future job applications?

I can see it now:

Hiring Manager: Sir, I see you list the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters as a reference. How much carpentry experience do you have?

Applicant: I have logged in over 100 hours of marching around in a circle while chanting slogans and holding a sign.

Hiring Manager: I'm sorry sir, we are currently looking for someone that is actually a carpenter and you don't have the necessary experience.

Applicant: Well, I DID get several slivers from the wooden signpost, doesn't that count?

Hiring Manager: I'm afraid not sir, sorry.

Applicant: I am outraged! How dare you refuse to hire me! This is blatant discrimination! I will sue!

Hiring Manager: Security! Please escort this man out of the building.

I think this might (emphasis on might) actually be a fairly brilliant idea. I can't imagine management enjoys having a bunch of homeless street people, ex--felons and various other assorted characters loitering outside the business all day in this half-baked version of a picket line. So maybe it will bring management to the table faster.

The notion that Marx considered all "workers" to be part of the proletariat is one of the greatest frauds of all time.

"In the first place, the majority of the "toiling people" in Germany consists of peasants, not proletarians."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch03.htm

The Union bosses are the proletarians, you see. Those guys they hired to picket? They're just the "toiling people". You know. Peasants. Totally different class.

Qwinn

Er, no. The proletariat are the workers:

"The proletariat (from Latin proles, offspring) is a term used to identify a lower social class; a member of such a class is proletarian. Originally it was identified as those people who had no wealth other than their sons; the term was initially used in a derogatory sense, until Karl Marx used it as a sociological term to refer to the working class."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

"Marx did not suppose the situation to be inescapable, however. Together with his collaborator, Friedrich Engels, Marx developed not only an analysis of current conditions but also a plan for political action, together with a theory about the historical inevitability of its success. In the Manifest der kommunistischen Partei (Communist Manifesto) (1848), Marx and Engels presented their practical proposals for changing the world.

"Social history is nothing other than a record of past struggles between distinct social classes. In the modern, industrial world, the most significant classes are the bourgeoisie, people who own land, resources, factories, and other means of production, and the proletariat, people who work for wages. In its efforts to succeed, the bourgeoisie must constantly revise and renew the means of production, ensuring a constant infusion of capital by building larger cities, promoting new products, and securing cheaper commodities. "

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5o.htm

It's interesting that this is used as a comparison to Wal-Mart wages and as an indictment of organized labor as a whole. Well interesting might be the wrong word --- I guess pointless would be better

Why would you even dare compare what unions pay picketers to what multi-billion dollar walmart pays the employees who help it make its money.

See Unions make money off of union dues. Which means they usually don't have a whole lot of money to be throwing around. Not to mention, I don't believe unions are "For-Profit"... So, even though you apparently can't see this, if a union that doesn't even try to make profit and only brings in a comparably small amount of money directly from its members can STILL pay 8.00 dollars an hour (only a buck and some change less than multi million dollar wal mart).... Doesn't make a strong case for wal mart...

The common thread on this blog seems to be to find an isolated incident and indict a whole movement, cause, or political party based on the isolated incident. That's not a good way of making informed opinions.

ck:

Margin.

Go look it up.

A huge business does not mean huge profits. Last I checked, Wal-Mart was selling stuff at really low prices--letting a lot of people get consumer goods they want.

For some reason, though, you assume that there's a demon somewhere who must be slain.

Bostonian, jeez man... So, lets see -- you think its appropriate to compare a union's wages for its picketers to the world's largest company?

How can i comment on that? I can't...

By the way, I'm well aware of what profit margin is...

Apparently, though, you aren't too bright if you think low prices at wal mart mean low profit margins. In fact that's the clueless attitude that got us Bush as president.

I don't assume there's a demon that needs to be slain... I have looked into Wal-Mart's business practices and have concluded they hurt OUR economy (not just liberal's economies--- your economy too Bostonian)... Have you looked into it for yourself, or are you just regurgitating what you heard from a talking head?

I hate Wal-Mart for saving me thousands of dollars a year! I blame Bush.

One of the reasons the Unions are doing this is that they don't have the numbers and can't muster enough of their own people to make any visible impact. Well they have made an impact now, not necessarily the one they wanted.

"How can i comment on that? I can't... "

Yet ck, you manage to find a way to sound completely ignorant.

Not a difficult feat for you.

I know you leftists have a hard time with the business model. Its a round peg that doesn't fit into the square hole in your head.

Crappy unions pay non-union workers less money than the company they are hired to picket pays its lowest paid workers.

And this escapes even your modest cognitive skills?

Laughing my ...... off.

Ck:

The Unions dredge enough in union dues to ensure the union hierarchy can live better than the workers they represent. So it is entirely reasonable that the hierarchy would hire off the books workers. After all, we wouldn't want the head honchos to forgoe their limos to pay union wages now would we.

If we assume people are paid by what the job requires, we can say that those who can, do; those who can't, protest.

"Perhaps they should form Picket Line Walkers Local #1 and demand a better wage than $8 per hour. The working conditions sound rather grim as well. Do these workers get paid breaks, health-care coverage, and a safe working environment? Er ... no."

And if their conditions and wages don't improve they should strike and picket the picket line! Or find someone else to pay to do it for them...

Captain Ed,

I know that the proletariat were purportedly "the workers", and that that is the way it is commonly understood. But if you wish to maintain that that's the way Marx really felt about it, how do you explain the quote in question? Feel free to follow my link and look at the surrounding text, if you feel I'm taking it out of context. Cause the context is even worse than the sentence I quoted makes it appear. (it's a rant against democracy).

Anyway, the text I quoted was:

"In the first place, the majority of the "toiling people" in Germany consists of peasants, not proletarians."

What you quoted does not contradict this in any way. We have always known that Marx lent most of his attention to the bourgeosie and the proletariat. But most people don't realize he had a 3rd category. "Peasants". Read it for yourself.

Qwinn

In fact, I just noticed, your quote lends weight to my argument. Note that, in your quote, he refers to the bourgeousis and proletariat not as the only classes, but the only -significant- classes.

The peasants simply weren't significant, you see. It's why they rarely got much attention. But they certainly were not part of the proletariat.

Qwinn

CK,
Did the mom and pop stores that Walmart replace, that offered less choices for far more money for the average consumer, pay above minimum wage or above what Walmart is paying its employees, or offer health care or various benefits to their employees?
Hell no.

So then what's the issue with Walmart. Walmart pays its employees a decent wage and above the market rate for the type of job thats being offered. It's low skilled work. And for that they're getting paid above what the market normally pays for that type of work. Don't expect CEO salaries for the guy whos putting prices on the cans or stocking the shelves. But if you're looking for a job where you put prices on the cans and stock shelves, Walmart pays pretty darn good.

And on top of that they give customers discounted prices and better selection than the mom and pop stores they replace. Sounds like a win win to me.

"I have looked into Wal-Mart's business practices and have concluded they hurt OUR economy"

Wal-Mart employs well over a million Americans, pays billions in wages and taxes yearly, offers low cost products that save Americans, especially poor Americans, thousands of dollars a year, and has spent tens of millions of dollars for construction of their stores, regional warehouses, etc to construction contractors who also employs Americans and pays wages and adds tax base. Just how does this HURT our economy?

Why do you think Wal Mart can sell for such low prices geniuses?

You love to make fun of me or the "left" for not knowing what's going on, but it's probably the most ironic thing you can do. You guys are being had.

Wal Mart (being the largest company in the world) can put their suppliers into a free fall if the supplier doesn't agree to meet Wal-Mart's pricing plans. So, instead the supplier ends up cutting wages to its employees and cuts back on the quality of the product they make -- all in the name of getting wal mart the product cheaper.

So yeah - Wal Mart gets you cheaper products, but it also makes all the employees of the suppliers and of wal mart itself make a whole lot less money. I guess that's the irony you guys can't grasp. You can get something for really cheap, but you will have to take a pay cut to do it....

So either you all are the really rich type that don't really care, or you're the ignorant type that follow the leader all the way over the cliff...

Have fun with that -

"And if their conditions and wages don't improve they should strike and picket the picket line! Or find someone else to pay to do it for them..."

Wouldn't that be considered outsourcing the outsourcing?

NYT Times Headline: Outsourced workers caught outsourcing their work.

CK wrote,
Wal Mart (being the largest company in the world) can put their suppliers into a free fall if the supplier doesn't agree to meet Wal-Mart's pricing plans. So, instead the supplier ends up cutting wages to its employees and cuts back on the quality of the product they make -- all in the name of getting wal mart the product cheaper.
What percentage of goods being offered at walmart are being offered nowhere else? For example. if I buy Tide from Walmart and its cheaper, the quality is no different than if I buy Tide from Costco. (and what pricing plans are they forcing on the poor manufacturers? And what pricing plans are the supermarkets forcing on the suppliers.
And is the pricing plan necessarily one that is actually detrimental to the supplier? If I'm mom and pop store and I buy Coke from a distributor I'll pay a certain amount for the product based on how much I order. A mom and pop store will only order a small number of items whereas Walmart will order exponentially more. Therefore the distributor can charge Walmart less for that same good becuase they are ordering so many more items. They're in effect buying in bulk. This isn't harming the distributor. Far from it, they're moving far more merchandise, and if they charge less for each individual itemthey still make a great profit because of the amount ordered.

"Why do you think Wal Mart can sell for such low prices geniuses?

Could it be that, due to the economies of scale, Wal-Mart is charged a lower per-unit price because of the large volume of supplies they purchase, thus lowering Wal-Marts expenses? Could it be that, due to the economies of scale, they are more efficient in tracing, controlling, and maintaining their inventory which allows them to match the supply of their products with consumer demand, thus increasing sales while lowering their overhead costs? Could this explain how Wal-Mart is able to charge a lower price for their products while still maintaining a profit? Hum...

"Wal Mart (being the largest company in the world) can put their suppliers into a free fall if the supplier doesn't agree to meet Wal-Mart's pricing plans.

Conversely, as Wal-Mart is dependent upon their suppliers, a boycott of Wal-Mart by the suppliers would put Wal-Mart out of business very quickly.

Sorry, I missed a close tag in the above post.

jr565:
I never said Wal-Mart offers goods that other stores don't. I said that since Wal Mart is the largest company in the world, the amount of supply needed is much greater than any other store. So, when wal mart starts selling some product, the maker of that product probably will have to increase production to meet the needs of wal mart's customers.

The producer basically starts building their business around supplying wal mart (again, since wal mart is so much bigger than the competitors). Since wal mart ends up being the key buyer of their product, wal mart now has leverage over the supplier. Wal Mart tells the supplier that they need to lower prices so that they can keep attracting more customers. The supplier can only lower their costs so much before having to cheapen the product or pay less to its own employees to meet wal mart's demand. In the end, the supplier and its employees get screwed. But Wal Mart keeps making lots of money and you get to buy the product for 50 cents cheaper than somewhere else.

Ray: See above

You are right to an extent. Suppliers need to make profit too... The way they do that, though, is to lower wages and cheapen the product's quality.

Once a supplier starts selling to wal mart they are basically owned by wal mart. Most of their business goes to wal mart. Wal Mart wouldn't care if one supplier stopped selling to them. That's only one product in the thousands they offer. But if there was a widespread boycott, then yeah it would affect them. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and probably won't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but businesses usually aren't in business to boycott (as that doesn't really help their bottom line). I think most business just goes along with it and lowers wages to their employees.

So, again, you can get cheap stuff but you will have to take a pay cut.

CK,

Your fears about Wal-Mart "owning" the suppliers and manufactures are unfounded. Any attempt by Wal-Mart to influence suppliers and manufacturers through unfair business practices would trigger multiple lawsuits, both criminal and civil. There are laws that protect the consumer from unscrupulous business. Wal-Mart is a business and is not immune from those laws.

Also, nothing prevents the suppliers from selling to another retailer. Wal-Mart may be the biggest retailer, but they are not the only one. If Wal-Mart tries to pressure the industry by threating to reduce demand, the suppliers will stop providing the products to Wal-Mart. This will allow a different retailer to pick up the excess inventory, usually at a reduced price. The products will still be sold, just not by Wal-Mart.

You are describing Wal-Mart as if it is a monopoly, which it is not. In Minneapolis alone, Wal-Mart competes with Target, Sears, Walgreen's, and several smaller "Mom and Pop" stores, most of which are chain stores like hardware stores, This doesn't even include the number of retailers at the Mall of America. Competition in retail sales is alive and well.

You claim that an increase in demand lowers employee income. I ask you to provide me with just one example where an increase in business, something both manufactures and suppliers are experiencing due to the increased demand for the products that Wal-Mart provides, actually leads to lower wages I don't think you will find a single example where some one took a pay cut because their company INCREASED business. Increased demand is GOOD for business and leads to HIGHER wages for their employees.

Labor is a product too. Just like any retailer, manufacturers and suppliers respond to increased demand by increasing the number of products and/or services they provided. This leads to an increase in the number of employees these business are depended upon to manufacture those products or provide those services. This increased demand amongst the employee base (those available to work) leads to higher wages. It's all a part of supply and demand.

As for quality, not many companies would stay in business for long if they provided a lower quality product. The competition amongst manufacturers, along with consumer choice, tends to weed out the crappy products.

Nothing you provided shows that Wal-Wart is harming our economy in any way whatsoever. Wal-Mart is helping our economy, as well as the economy of other countries.

Ray, you either fundamentally misunderstood what I was saying or you are just talking about something way off base from what I was.

For example you state: "nothing prevents the suppliers from selling to another retailer. Wal-Mart may be the biggest retailer, but they are not the only one. If Wal-Mart tries to pressure the industry by threating to reduce demand, the suppliers will stop providing the products to Wal-Mart."

What really happens is that WAL-MART (AGAIN being the biggest corporation in the world) changes the way a supplier functions. Normally a supplier would supply to multiple outlets as you mentioned. But when Wal Mart starts selling their products, the supplier sees a jump in demand. With the jump in demand comes an increase in production. After awhile the supplier makes most of their money of of selling to WAL MART. All is fine and dandy to that point, but then wal mart demands lower prices. The supplier could just stop supplying wal mart, but if they did that then they would lose all the business that made them grow. They would have to slash employees, facilities, all sorts of operations etc. It usually isn't feasible or in the company's best interest. So, Wal-Mart essentially owns them.

Do you get that?

You then state: "You claim that an increase in demand lowers employee income." --

Again you are waaay off here. I did not say that. I said that a company that starts supplying wal mart will see an increase in demand. That's all good. The problem starts when wal mart starts telling the company that it needs to lower prices (which wal mart does do). So, because the supplier has made their operations based around the huge demand from Wal Mart, they really have no choice but to oblige wal mart's requests. Therefore they have to cut employee's wages and the quality of the product.

You then state: "The competition amongst manufacturers, along with consumer choice, tends to weed out the crappy products."

You must be kidding right? Not only have crappy products dominated the market for the last 30-40 years, but there is no sign that it will stop. If everyone makes crappy products, then everyone will have to keep on buying new ones when they break right? It's what they do ray ---

Since I'm apparently not explaining myself very well (hence having to repeat it 4 times), here's a link that might help it go through a bit better:

LINK

One last thing Ray ---
You stated: "You are describing Wal-Mart as if it is a monopoly, which it is not. In Minneapolis alone, Wal-Mart competes with Target, Sears, Walgreen's, and several smaller "Mom and Pop" stores, most of which are chain stores like hardware stores, This doesn't even include the number of retailers at the Mall of America. Competition in retail sales is alive and well."

I'm not sure if you know this or not, but all those stores you mentioned don't add up to wal mart even when you combine them.

Wal Mart is bigger than every store you mentioned combined! See what I'm trying to say now?

When I was a kid in college, I worked at an upscale dept. store. They didn't pay ANYONE except for the managers any money. Why is everyone convinced that Wal-Mart pays low wages? Hello...you don't get rich working in retail unless you are the store manager. Wal-Mart hate is just the usual lefty dislike of anything that helps out the middle class, combined with snottyness at the supposed type of people that shop there, and their lack of expensive designer products. Wal-Mart is a great place to get items cheaper than elsewhere through the good old buying in bulk process. Lefties probably would rather have Hillary-Mart, where you'd be offered what the govt. THINKS you should have at prices depending on your personal income and/or political contribution level. And the goods would cost the store way more than necessary with the difference being made up in your tax hike.

jaeger51 -
Yeah that's what I want... I want anything to help the middle class fail. Where do you come up with this stuff?

ck,

You keep complaining that Wal-Mark is forcing down prices at the expense of workers wagers and product quality. Here's a direct quote from you:

"The supplier can only lower their costs so much before having to cheapen the product or pay less to its own employees to meet wal mart's demand."

Do you understand the concept of economies of scale and how that effect prices? Manufacturers and suppliers can charge a lower price for bulk orders as it lowers their overhead costs while guarantying a steady supply of income. It's cheaper to build ten thousand gizmo's continuously then to build a thousand gizmos at ten different times. It's cheaper to ship 5,000 gizmos in one order than to ship five orders of 1,000 gizmos. It's cheaper to pack 500 gizmos in one container than to pack 100 gizmos in 5 containers. That's the economies of scale. This is how manufactures and suppliers can increase their production, and their profits, with out having to sacrifice quality or lower their expenses like labor costs. The saving realized in the economies of scales more than offsets the additional costs of producing the required products.

You claim that the quality of products have been declining in the last 20-30 years. I'm 47 years old and I can tell you that product quality has been IMPROVING over my lifetime. Manufacturers spend a significant percentage of their capital on quality control as they need to keep up with their competitors. Any company that produces a low quality product would loose business as the competitors would offer a higher quality product at a similar, or slightly higher, price. Consumer choice is the driving force of this competition. Remember, there are more than one manufacture for any given product and if the consumer was dissatisfied with the quality of a product they would simply switch brands, even if they had to pay a higher cost for the higher quality product.

Wal-Mart doesn't just sell one brand of a product, they sell several different brands at different prices. The consumers decide which brand to purchase and how much they are willing to pay for that product. If Wal-Mart doesn't provide a product that meets the consumers expectations as to quality and cost, the consumer will not buy that product and both Wal-Mart and the product manufacture will lose money. If the consumer doesn't like any of the products Wal-Mart offers, they will shop at a different retailer, like Best Buy. This is called capitalism and it works very well.

Your main argument is that Wal-Mart, being the biggest retailer, has some kind of undue influence upon manufacturers and suppliers, and because of this they have enormous control of our economy which will be disastrous in the long run. In other words, gloom and doom. I've heard gloom and doom predictions before and none of them has ever been fulfilled. You're just providing another gloom and doom scenario and I have no doubt that this one will not be fulfilled as well.

"Wal Mart is bigger than every store you mentioned combined! See what I'm trying to say now?"

Wal-Mart is the biggest retail company, so what? In a free market economy there will ALWAYS be one company that out performs all the rest. 30 years ago, that retail company was Sears, today it's Wal-Mart, and tomorrow? Who knows, but you can rest assured that, in time, another company will eclipse Wal-Mart. That's the beauty of free market economies, no single company can dominate the market for long.

There's nothing wrong with a free market economy and this type of economy will always improve the well being of any society that adopts it. It's only when a society ignores the benefits of a free market economy that ends up worse off than it began. Just ask the Soviet Union about the benefits of a centrally controlled economy. Oh wait, their economy collapsed and their government no longer exists, so never mind. Maybe you should ask China instead. Oh wait, China is adopting a free market system as well. Once again, never mind.

It is possible that if you search long enough you find may actually find an example of how a centrally controlled economy out performs a free market economy and is a benefit to that society. Let me know when you find one.

Ray:
Read the damn link I posted and stop this crap. I know that if you buy more you can save money in a lot of cases. Unfortunately that's not the only reason Wal-Mart has cheap prices... Read the damn link.

apparently you refuse to enlighten yourself -

I'll bet you could hire picketers in India to march around and chant, film them with a web cam, and project it onto a big screen for even less than the $1900 to $2500 they are paying those 30+ people picketing.

Send those pickets overseas!