board77

could the previous post be removed as an attack on my integrity?

Here are some facts that I believe cannot be denied by any thinking individual.

2,000 people in a store the size of a Wal Mart is a recipe for disaster.

Enticing thousands of people to shop at your store at 5 AM by offering them foreign made crap at greatly reduced prices is an invitation for trouble.

Not hiring the necessary crowd control people to insure both employee and customer safety is negligence.

Ordering lowly paid parttime emloyees to stand by the doors when the crowd is getting agitated and had to be earlier restrained by police officers is grossly irresponsible and a clear sign of not showing the least bit concern for your own employees safety.

The absence of any union to advocate for Wal Mart workers contributed to this situation.

Wal Mart sucks.

Actually, I can argue with all of those, except the last of course, wal mart does suck.

In fact, I have already argued against them. You're claiming they are facts now, rather than opinions, isn't actually an argument, but a claim that you are right without having to argue.

you missed the key words

I BELIEVE

you see, if I believe it, they are facts to me.

So you believe everyone that disagrees with you is a "non-thinking individual?"

ETA:
I'm still trying to understand what you're claiming. Here is what you stated:

"Here are some facts that I believe cannot be denied by any thinking individual."

you state two things there: "here are some facts..." and that you "believe [they] cannot be denied by any thinking individual."

Your next post seems to imply that you are not claiming the list that followed that statement were facts (which is what you said), but that you believed them, so they are facts in your world-view. This is an entirely different point, and an opinion you are welcome to have, but I'm not sure then what you mean about "thinking individuals." Only thing I can come up with is that anyone that shared your world-view would agree with you if they were "thinking individuals."

I'm sure that's true.

It doean't make the things you listed facts.

(my apologies to anyone polite enough to not have me on ignore. These kind of hoops are necessary with SF so that we are clear on who is saying what.)

I wonder if after this incident there will be a greater push for a union in Wal-Mart.

It's not likely, Wal Mart will shut down berore it allows its workers to unionize.

Every workplace should have the right to form or join a union without fear of intimidation from management.

why?

Why would Wal-Mart shut down first? I think this incident will result in workers calling for a Wal-Mart union.

Why? Hal... why should workers have a right to unionize without fear of reprisal from management? That's a different matter than is the main topic of this thread.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

Why? Hal... why should workers have a right to unionize without fear of reprisal from management? That's a different matter than is the main topic of this thread.

true enough, but the comment was made here, I'm curious to here why this is considered something that is a "right."

If it's a whole discussion it could be it's own thread. If tosh has a simple answer, it doesn't have to be.

Wall mart will not allow a union because it would cost them much or all of their profits... Why would they allow that if they could just get workers that did not want to cost them that money?

To derail for a minute--the right to unionize doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a union, but to deny the workers the right then gives the corporation power over the worker's safety and benefits. There needs to be safeguards to keep corporations in line with regards to safety because when things were entirely laisse faire, a lot of workers had to work in dangerous conditions.

Anyway, I'm done with my derailing for now. We can debate this at length in a thread about unions if you like.

It is a RIGHT because the 1936 Wagner Act says it is a right.

No more.
No less.

Workers have a right to unionize in businesses such as Wal Mart.
No ifs.
No ands.
No buts.

safety is ensured by laws and inspections, not by unions. Only the corporation should have power over an employee's benefits. the employee agrees to work for what they are given. benefits are not a "right" either, nor is pay outside of minimum wage (that's a whole nother argument).

By the way, they are free to unionize, no one is denying that right. They just won't work for wal mart if they do.

from halplm

Quote:

safety is ensured by laws and inspections, not by unions.

Is that your own private opinion or is that a fact?

sauronsfinger wrote:

It is a RIGHT because the 1936 Wagner Act says it is a right.

No more.
No less.

Workers have a right to unionize in businesses such as Wal Mart.
No ifs.
No ands.
No buts.

Thanks, SF, I did not know that.

As I said, they are free to do so. The first time they strike, though, wal mart will just hire other people.

Only you can explain your own posts. they certainly are beyond my explaination.

Quote:

safety is ensured by laws and inspections, not by unions.

Again - your own opinion or fact?

This is a debate about Wal-Mart (was, at least) and is beginning to move to the positives and negatives of unions and unionizing. Any statement you make should be backed up if it represents your opinion. safety is ensured by laws and inspections, not by unions. Here is your statement. Providing some form of quotation would help us this debate.


Derail over.

Temporary lock while I split the thread. I will be re-opening it soon. Stand by.

ETA: Okay, I've sent the unpleasant hal-sf diversion to the Bike Racks. In terms of advancing what could otherwise be an interesting discussion, it would be nice if statements could be backed up by supporting evidence. As it currently stands, worker safety was one of the reasons unions came into existence in the first place. In fact, it was the trade unions and the public outcry at worker deaths that backed the initial worker safety laws and institution of workman's comp. See this brief history of OSHA. So I'd say unions have a lot to do with ensuring a safe workplace.

Now, as to the Walmart death, the finger can go pointing in dozens of directions, starting with a serious crowd-control fuck-up that, given that these rushes happen every year, could and should have been anticipated. That such a stampede even happened is pretty horrifying to me. A bunch of crap went on sale and a man died because 2000 people couldn't get through the doors fast enough? WTF??