(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.
