I agree with Summer. The answer isn't going to be poor people getting a conscience. I'm one of those people I have a conscience, and I shop at alternatives for groceries where they sack their own stuff and have cheaper prices. I also only go to Wal Mart if I have to. Just cuz I hate Walmart That Much. But, I'm not going to change it. Neither is that poor checker person either. Nor is the manager who thinks they have it good, and neither are the individual communities who will crack under Wal Mart anytime anyhow anywhere. There does need to be legislation. It's simple, the proportion of your income dictates how many PT workers you can have.

Sounds like Business as usual, goin on in DC communities now. Same thing happened when I lived with my grandparents in Lone Tree Colorado: the housing area where the executives for Mc Donalds lived and such. They opposed Wal Mart as long as they could, but at the end of the day there's a very hustling and bustling Wal Mart there. They shop there a lot, actually. They're not rich, btw. They just bought the right land 30yrs ago (somewhere they thought they could retire), and live on pensions, so they haVe to save money.

Why can't anyone unionize then? I don't get why not? I just lack the information.

Poor people have consciences. They just don't often have choices.

(July 7, 2013 at 10:41 am)missluckie26 Wrote: But, I'm not going to change it. Neither is that poor checker person either. Nor is the manager who thinks they have it good, and neither are the individual communities who will crack under Wal Mart anytime anyhow anywhere. There does need to be legislation. It's simple, the proportion of your income dictates how many PT workers you can have.

I'm going to disagree with part of this. I believe the workers can change Wal*Mart... If they organize. Which leads to this:

(July 7, 2013 at 10:41 am)missluckie26 Wrote: Why can't anyone unionize then? I don't get why not? I just lack the information.

Wal*Mart has resisted unions since they started. It's rather typical of Southern business in general, but as an industry leader, it is kind of a chicken or egg question. Are Southern businesses resistant to unionization because Wal*Mart is such a leader or is Wal*Mart resistant to unionization because of Southern attitudes? I'd say a bit of both.
Example: The meat packing departments in some northern state (Michigan, Wisconsin, somewhere in that general area) voted to become unionized. Instead of allowing one state to have unions in one department, Wal*Mart closed all of their in-house meat packing (across the country) and outsourced those jobs to another company. All to not have any unions in any Wal*Mart store. And Wal*Mart is a company that does EVERYTHING in-house. They do their own marketing, development, all their tech, warehouses, shipping, you name it, it's all in-house. That is part of their business plan to keep costs down.
Part of the labor policy created under John Tate, was kind of an elite squad of union-busters. Anytime there is agitation in a store for unionization, these people are sent out from the home offices to shut down the problem. They speak with everyone in the store (in storewide meetings, and individually, after hours, showing very sympathetic faces to associates' concerns) and try to convince them that joining a union isn't in their best interest. They use coercive tactics, from promising addressing of grievances if complaints go through management rather than organizing (which never seem to materialize), to thinly veiled threats of cut hours and termination. They also target employees who are pushing for union organization looking for legal ways to terminate them. Including reviewing timecards, sick leave requests, basically anything they can fire them for without it being attributable to the union drive. These are typical of businesses trying to prevent unionization, but Wal*Mart was really a frontrunner in this department. They've also used their money and legal muscle to help shape state and federal labor laws.

So they're successful at damage control? Doesn't make sense to me, Why isnt there a national labor Union?

Store associates are generally isolated from one store to the next. Recently there have been attempts a wider range networking of employees, with marginally more success than attempting to organize stores individually. But not much, and not even formally unions, in an attempt to not provoke Wal*Mart in direct confrontation. You have to keep in mind, a lot of Wal*Mart associates are dependent upon their positions for their livelihoods. Under threat of having one's hours cut or being terminated, many (if not most) will individually complain about Wal*Mart's labor practices, but still be unwilling to come forward with more direct action or organization. The legal cases Wal*Mart has pushed through the courts have been very damaging to union organizations across the board, effecting more than just retail unions. Wal*Mart doesn't just want to not be unionized, they've spearheaded and bankrolled a lot of the cases that have undermined and gutted the entire US labor movement.

---

My mistake. The meat-packers were in Jacksonville, Texas, not in the north. But here's an article with a rundown of Wal*Mart's labor transgressions over the years:
http://www.corp-research.org/wal-mart

---

And here's an article detailing the OUR Wal*Mart movement and Wal*Mart's response. This happened last fall, with associates walking out on strike on Black Friday:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174937/wal...z2XS1qzcQi