I was at walmart before and over heard a woman exclaime to her doughter. ‘I don’t shop at walmart everything’s hear is crap”. uh excuse me woman your at wlamart and shopping. So if you don’t like Walmart then get out please we don’t need to know your 2 cents. if you hate the store so much then don’t shop there, TheR’s other shops around halifax you can be at. Please stop complaing in our stores if you don’t lkie it, GET THE FUCK OUT BITCH..
This article appears in Apr 24-30, 2008.
when calling one stupid, you shouldnt have 20 errors in a 5 line bitch.Just kidding. I dont get why people feel the need to put down a store? Really if something is not to your liking, then just dont shop there, what really can come from insulting a store?
The corporations will acknowledge the one gnarly person who is bitching, and change their ways, of course.*rolls eyes*
holy crap…where does one begin to point out ‘her’ grammatical/spelling errors. Perhaps ‘her’ white-trash-phonics /spell as you say it, girl grab a d-i-c-t-i-o-n-a-r-y before you spew on her…2ndly just by being in a store does not mean you are buying….glass houses….
I think this is the kind of writing Newsgal was talking about making people look dumb.
Wow. Just… wow.I get the impression that SoSCS is a MallWart employee. I read somewhere that MallWart actually PREFERS to hire people who never finished high school. Maybe it’s true.
I’m sure most of you have heard about the Walmart in Quebec that closed it’s doors once the employees managed to get a union. They obviously don’t want to have intelligent people thinking up crazy ideas like unionizing and selling well made products! They managed to scare all these other Walmart employees and townsfolk into thinking that if they try and get a union, they’ll close and our whole town will collapse. And often I wondered, don’t they realise that if all the Walmarts across the country tried to unionize all at once, they surely wouldn’t shut down every store. They’d have to deal with it, score one for the little guys! But no, the fact is that they don’t realise it, beacuse most of them don’t have any education and are just zombies wandering around hoping people won’t ask them any questions.
I here what your saying. I hate when people complain about wear there shopping. And the Mart of Darkness is not as bad as everyone says. Sure they crush the souls of there workers, and have a strong anti union stance, but there shit is cheep. If you don’t like it, simply don’t shop their. Know foolin’.And for all the haters bitching about grammar/ spelling, get over yourselfves, that’s what spellcheck is there for. It doesn’t miss much.As a side note, their hugely anti union stance isn’t entirely unreasonable, as their entire business plan would have to change to deal with full time employees, instead of having mostly part time workers with no benefits. And most of the workers rights that unions started out to protect are now protected, and lots of large and small business are now basically fucked because of unreasonable or unrealistic union demands. Just because a company starts making some money doesn’t automatically entitle you to a big raise.
If there’s a union, it will abuse the management. If there is no union, the management will abuse the workers. I think Pete makes a good point that a lot of the real needs of workers already guaranteed by law….laws that came about because of unions mind you. But, everytime I think maybe the union has had its day, I remind myself of how Wal-Mart manages to exploit it workers. But it seems unions have become a bit too powerful in some cases. Look at how the Transit workers in toronto just threatened to strike and managed to secure a wage of $27 an hour to sit in a booth and watch people put tokens in a bucket. That seems a little off considering it’s the taxpayers/transit users are subsidizing these wage increases.
Pete, the biggest example of profits meaning a hijacking by its workers is the auto industry. Them fucks are the sole reason that cars cost as much as they do. Most peices of shit made in detroit cost no more than $5k to make. Add in the unbelivably high wages of not just the assembly plant workers, but the wages of those that makes the parts, that shit winds up costing over$15k……and if a company turns a profit? BOOM STRRRRRRRIIKKKKKKKEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!Buzz hargrove doesnt take responsibility, but the leader of the CAW is the sole reason that shit is as exspensive as it is in terms of North American Autos. He started that shit in the 80’s and it caugh on with many unions. It was done before him, but the selecting of certain companies and certain plants, he was a beast. Still is.Unions have a place, but sometimes they are more the problem than the solution.
Yeah, I saw the same in unions in steel mills. I saw someone that did something hugely dangerous that could have killed a lot of people and shut down the mill for almost two weeks (which costs millions in production a day) get fired, then the union fought to get him reinstated, which he eventually was, then he did it AGAIN, so they fired him AGAIN, and the union got him reinstated AGAIN. Then he got shuffled off to a corner somewhere for the last few years until he retired because it was cheaper. Or the union that fought for a janitor to get his job back at an elementary school after they fired him because they found out he was a convicted child molester. Unions are fine as long as they consider the overall good of everyone (including other union members) as well as their individual members. A lot of them get tunnel vision and will rabidly back members even when they have no case just because.
I figure it’s because they have nothing better to do and need to justify their existance. Unions should be mothballed and downsized in between contract negotiations.
People complain about unions in place when it’s a government job, and therefore the raises and funds are coming out of tax payer pockets. Hospitals, transit, school, we get mad when they threaten to strike, because we know that their raise is our problem. Then we complain about unions in private companies because that makes the consumer product prices rise, like the cars.People seem to forget that we can’t have it all! We can’t have good education for our children without keeping our teachers well fed, happy, and healthy. We can’t lower wait times in ER’s without paying for nurses and doctors and keeping them happy. And we can’t have cheap cars, and happy automakers.Oh wait, what’s that? There is a middle ground?That’s right, if the CEO’s of the automaker companies didn’t need to make 7 digit figures, and their stockholders didn’t need to see a 4.5% increase every year we could have moderately priced cars, and happy workers?If the government officials had salaries that came close to that of the working poor they spoke for we’d have more money for hospitals?We need to stop pretending that it’s the lower and middle class workers wanting to be treated fairly, that causes prices to rise so much, and start bitching about how the top of the financial food chain are the problem.
I couldn’t agree with you more PAS.
Onions? Why is everybody complaining about onions? I like onions, they taste good on a burger.Oh, wait — unions. Well, those are quite different, aren’t they? Although I hear Jimmy Hoffa tasted good, ground up on a burger.
Oh, and with the auto workers, and the unions for the part suppliers, the NA car companies have been screwed hugely, and is a part of the reason they are in such trouble (although poor design and QC and QA don’t help either). Some people are getting paid way above their skill level. Toyota seems to have a better handle on it. Mostly because their workers are really happy.
People are stupid…..i would almost agree with that but for one thing….. if you are the person that is control of a company that handles BILLIONS of dollars, are you sure they should be getting paid a lower wage? I think that someone that has that much responsibility is entitled to a big wage. The fact is, the choices that those guys make, is the only reason there is a job for a small guy. If he fucks up or is a criminal…. then there is A LOT of small guys with out a job.I am not so sure i really agree with the top guys getting too much part. What do you think is an acceptable salary for a person that is responsible for over a billion dollars?
I think however much is left over once the workers get a fair wage and benefits and safe working conditions is a fair place to start
so they get nothing if the company turns a loss?
PAS, how many CEOs are in the company? One, and they are the ones held responsible and accountable if shit doesn’t go well. That’s why they get the big bucks. Autoworkers get paid 70k plus to work on an assembly line. They do work, but if you get a shitty car with everything falling apart, guess who doesn’t get held responsible for it; the people that actually put it together. And a company like Ford will have tens of thousands of employees like that. So for every dollar an hour raise they get, it costs a company that size millions a year in salary, plus the extras they pay in pensions and other benefits.
i also think people do not buy stocks to see even steven each year. I think they invest to turn a profit. No profit, layoffs until there is….. that CEO has to answer to a lot of people.
The people who are getting paid the most aren’t generally even the ones held responsible for things. Shit rolls down hill, there are 20 lawyers waiting to cushion the fall, as well as half a dozen managers, and executives, and other people who are all making big bucks but not getting shit on. The supervisors and assistant managers get the stink, and they don’t get the money.And I don’t think that the people at the top need to be making what they are. Anyone in the world can live like a king on $200 000 a year, anything over that is excessive. And you know they’re making triple that at least. And it really doesn’t matter how much money they’re responsible for, they never touch that money, bankers and accountants making far less do. And someone being paid $100 000 a year is going to be just as careful if he’s responsible for a $1million company, or a $1billion company if he knows what he’s doing and is happy at his job.
But if the billion dollar company wants to attract the guy or gal running the million dollar company, the best way to do that is to pay them more….and the bigger company can afford to. Not saying it’s right…just the way it goes.
Stocks are another issue. The problem with stocks now is that people seem to think they’re worthless unless they’re constantly climbing and seeing certain percentage increases. Stockholders are promised increases in the profits each year. So they’re not happy with just making $50 on the dollar each year forever, they need to see $50 the first year, then $75 the second, then $100 the third, and so on. That’s the problem, because that forces companies to make that much more increasingly every year. They can’t sell the same amount of cars this year as they did last year (which would still be making money for the stockholders), they need to sell 25% more, because they promised a 25% increase per year in the stocks. (Obviously exaggerating, but easier math).
PAS, that is in terms of lawsuits. What about if the company losses $50 million. He has to answer to shareholders.Do you not think that it is odd for someone that is incharge of a billion dollars, is barely making more than double than the that hammers a bumper? If the guy making the bumper fucks up once or twice, than the damage is minimal. The CEO fucks up once, and the damage may be irreparable. I cant see the CEO being 2.5 times more important than the factory worker. Oh, what you deem to acceptable as a rate, should we take that as the standard, or would that be a voted thing? How would we enforce something like that? Who should be the ones to make that choice for a private company? Should we alter that rate and have a scale based on the size or annual sale of the company? SHould a person that actually owns the company be deemed a CEO? Would that be fair to have a limit on profits? You see all those things would have to be considered.Here is another question, if the CEO’s wage is tied to profits, should a company take a loss, do the workers suffer that same hit?
PAS…..isnt that the point to investing? You see something wrong with that? if you have investments, what is your purpose for having them if you dont want maximum yeild on your investment?
If the shareholders expectations are unrealistic then the company is forced to make changes to meet their anticipated returns in order to retain the investors and keep the company alive. The investors don’t care about the company, the CEO or the workers, they care about profit. In this case the investors are really running the company, not the CEO, and the workers are the ones who will suffer when shortcuts are taken to ensure profits. It’s really the same problem we have with corporations influencing government policy: “you do business our way, or we go invest somewhere else, human rights and environment be damned”
but that is the CEO’s job, he is the middly guy that has to try to make it so that a company puts out a good product, doesnt get some rep as a comapny that has shit falling apart (we can argue for days about what car is best) and all that shit…….he has to manage public relations (oversees the group that heads that up) ….. and all the stuff with the workers….Them CEO’s have a lot of people relying on them. What is funny, is you acnt expect a shareholder to want a lower profit, that isnt the reason for investing. If any of us thought there was a way to maximize profit and keep workers happy and the CEO wasnt doing it, he would be gone. The workers want someone that can keep the company showing a profit, something that many workers dont really take into consideration until the lack of profits means layoffs…..them people have lots of weight on the shoulders….. cetainly more than 2.5 times the amount of pressure the factory workers has. That is a tough gig the more i think about it.
Exactly Miles.Homie I’m not saying we should be controlling how much private companies are paying themselves, I’m saying we shouldn’t be blaming things on the lower/middle class workers wanting unions, when they are just fighting for their rights, and the people above them are swimming in cash.And the point of investing is to make money, but you’re still making money even if it’s the same amount every year. But like Miles said, the shareholders want more and more, so they make the companies/governments bend to their will which ends up hurting the little guy.
but you have unions that want to look into the books of what a company made last year and DEMAND a pay raise based on that.clearly you see something wrong with that dont you? The same people do not give back money if the company takes a loss. Your point is valid in the profitable situations, but what about when a company takes a loss?The thing about governments influenced by corporations, that is sorta all of our faults. The fact that the companies can move elsewhere and still bring the product to us for the same cost as making it here is a problem if you work in the manufacturing sector. Why should a company stay? Why should it keep its job here if it isnt profitiable? If i owned a company and it made more econmical sense to move to Mexico, then im going. Its my company, i made the investment. It wont hurt me to leave. Now the workers that made my shit, they got fucked. the consumers, the only way i could get hurt, is if my product isnt purchased in canada. Since we rarely see the consumer hold mass protests/ boycotts against a company that simply moved down south, there is only one way to ensure those jobs stay in Canada, and that is make concessions to them companies….. its sucks, but its reality. There really isnt a way to stop it either. Its been this way for over 100 years too.
oh, and when the little guy says he wants a raise based on profits….. he is being just as greedy and wanting the profit margin to rise…… same as the stock holder.Both want the profit to increase….. so why is one greed better than the other?
The only way to stop it is for governents to get together and start setting some global standars for workers rights and environmental protectionism. Trade happens globally and if people want to stop being at the mercy of corporate interests then we need global rules for trade drawn up by politicians serving the interests of the people not businesses serving the interests of profit. I think the EU is on the right track for finding a balance between encouraging economic prosperity whilst maintaining social and environmental standards. NAFTA…not so much.
I think it’s a matter of being able to live, for the little guy, rather than being greedy. The price of fuel, wheat, power etc keeps raising but their rates aren’t raising at the same time. Except, perhaps for the 2.9% cost of living raise that most people get yearly, which isn’t anywhere close to amount that cost of living increases each year. What P A S and Miles are saying is, there’s not need for these big executives to be bringing in $500,000 and stiffing their works for $10-12/hr and no benefits. P A S is right, if you can’t manage to live like a king on $200,000/yr than you’re living in excess and should be taking a step back to put things in perspective.
I am not saying we should not make incentives to attract business. Business is good for the economy, as are jobs. All I am saying, and as far as I want to go with it, is that corporations can only be expected to act in the interest of profit (that’s not a judgement and I am not saying corporations are evil). Governments are entrusted with the welfare of the people, the economy and the environment. When corporate agendas threaten the welfare of people or nature, the government needs to have the power to protect them. Free trade and globalization restrict the governments ability to meet the needs of the people. That is not right and that needs to change.
fair enough… tough to do and attract business (which we have to do to meet the increase in population.nice to have a conversation around here that stayed on topic BTW
No, I’m not saying that Homie. But why should the people that work the hardest for the company (and really keep it going) be struggling to make ends meet when the guy up top is wiping his ass with $20 bills? I’m well aware of the way the world works. If a company made $1 billion last year they can afford to give these people raises but that’s not usually the case, they keep it for themselves while these people continue to try and keep there heads above water. The rich get richer …And yes, if I my company made $1 billion in 2007, sure I deserve a chunk of that but you can only spend so much money in your life time. And even if you did manage to spend it all how much of it went to waste on ridiculous things? You read about people everyday spending $8000 on dog sweaters and collars. Get a grip. There’s not need for that, it’s selfish and wasteful.
Bunions? Oh, jeez, I hate bunions. Nasty, ugly little deformities.Oh, wait — unions. Well, same thing really.
But if they made $1 billion, that is something that you or i couldnt comprehend. Have you done anything close to that? How does it feel? And if i really do not think that any opinion on what one says is an acceptable amount is what another person might think. I certainly didnt spend the amount that i did on a university degree to make $200, 000. Call it greedy, or whatever, i dont care. I want to be able to have a nice $500,000, a nice house, to be able to work 50 days a year, to have a nice car or three, to have my kids educations at the school of thier choosing paid for, to be able to visit my family world wide…. and guess what? $200,000 a year isnt going to get me that. Your goals and expectations cant be thrust upon another.
CEOs are also supply and demand. There are millions of people that can work in an assembly line. There are probably only a few hundred that can run the company. The CEO of a company is The Guy. Good CEO; company continues to turn a profit, grows, etc. Bad CEO, and you get an Enron.WRT the investors, they aren’t all ‘Wall Street Fat Cats’. In fact, anyone with RRSPs is an investor. When a big company goes the way of Corel, or Nortel, it’s the normal workers that lost their retirement investments. And if I’m looking at an RRSP, I want one that will give me a good return so I can retire comfortably. So yeah, I want a CEO of a company that has a bit of my money in it being good, so if that means they pay a fraction of a percent of their operating budget, which works out to a few mil a year, than I’m okay with that.One last point, I’ve done both assembly line, blue collar long hour jobs and now white collar management jobs. I can honestly say that a management job where you are responsible for a lot (and people), it’s a lot harder than going in, busting your ass for 8 putting things together (or 16) hours, and going home. At least before when I punched out, I was done, and not taking anything home.
oh, and another thing….the hardest working guy has no job without the choices and decisions that CEO makes. So it doesnt matter how hard a dude works if he is unemployed or laid off because of that CEO….now what if a single man OWNS the company, should he be making choices and making $1 billion dollars profit and the guy that works for a rival company be only the CEO but be making the same choices only that $200,000? Hardly fair.
Ok Homie, I think you’re taking my point a little too literally. I was just throwing a number out there. Those are things that everyone is entitled too, a nice house, an education etc. But if you’re making millions of dollars a year there’s absolutely no way you can spend that on sensible things. All I’m saying is, you can’t take with you, so why not spread the wealth huh?
Call it greedy, but im not here to share the wealth. I am not here to steal or cheat anyone either. But if me having the money to line up a $5k watch each day for the rest of my life, that is maximizing my time on earth. And that of my family and those close to me.
And that is why unions are needed … to put some kind of a curb on greed.
How would that be putting a curb on the greed? Does the union give back money or demand the workers take a huge loss should the company take a huge loss? Now you see the problem with your suggestion?
It puts a curb on greed because the unions help secure a fair wage for their workers. And no, the union does not give back money if the company experiences a loss. That’s the risk of running a business. By no means are unions perfect, for the most part they’re just a headache but there are some very good aspects of them.I have a university degree and my first job out of school was with a Chartered Accounting firm. They paid me $12 an hour to do their work, so at the end of the day they could review it and put their signature on it. This company did very well, 5 or 6 partners charging $250/hr for their services and they couldn’t pay more than $12/hr? Would have like to have a union backing me up then.I see your point Homie but can’t you for once just look at something from someone elses point of view?
Is the CEO’s paycheck the first to get cut if the company takes a loss?And you are just playing devil’s advocate with the last few posts aren’t you Homie?
Unions have nothing at all to do with curbing greed. In fact, modern unions just represent the greed of the workers a lot of the time. Yes, people to deserve a fair living wage. But lets face it, a guy stacking widgets together doesn’t have any qualifications that desrve the same wage as someone like a millwright just because the company is making a lot of money. Just because a company turns a 10% profit doesn’t mean you deserve a 10% wage increase. That kind of thinking has been responsible for tens of thousands of good high paying jobs disappearing because it costs less for the company to automate than to keep people working.Unions do have their place. I’m just saying protecting lazy/incompetent/dangerous workers, or financially crippling a for profit company isn’t one of them. The brutal working conditions of the time when unions started are now illegal, and it’s a pretty common joke about how hugely inefficient and slow union jobs are. And that’s solely because the unions in general will defend their members even when they were clearly givin Fido a good go.
Not at all, like Pete, I am looking at this as my investment as well. I put my money in the RRSP worlds to secure my future. I also have a few stocks….. and when you do your research on the CEO’s that run the company that you hope is going to turn your investment into the a secure future, you do more than just complain about how much he makes. The facts are these guys are why the little guys can retire. One CEO taking a million dollar pay cut isnt going to do shit when 30k workers want a 50cent raise….. do the math….. the workers are making that million dollars…..each day. Really, cutting his money is a drop in the pan. Hardly playing devil’s advocate, i looked at the bigger picture as has Pete. While i understand what the others are saying……. the impact of the actions they consider arent taking into account the true responsibility of these CEO. You want to pay shit money for a CEO, you go look at those that lost MILLIONS on Enron and world.com. Scams or mistakes…… CEO’s cant afford them. THey are hardly comparable to the front line workers.
Right, so if a company takes a loss, why should any of the employees suffer a pay cut? CEO or line worker? They shouldn’t. However, if a company is reaping record profits, why shouldn’t some of that get to the workers. The CEO is proabably getting a bonus cheque for it. Maybe the workers should too. Or a pay increase. Doesn’t have to match the increase in profits, but it’s a good wayto keep your workers happy. I don’t think CEO’s should make shit money either, as I explained below, that’s the best way to attract the best minds to run your company. And what I meant by devil’s advocate was that the attitude behind coments like “I’m not here to share the wealth” seemed inconsistent with a guy who fundraises for homeless people. You are clearly a complex individual…just when I think I have you all figured out…. 🙂
And to try and restore a little bit of balance to this thread, I think that both sides here are arguing the same point. On the one hand, corporate excess and greed at the expense of labour needs to be curbed, hence unions. Unions that have won their day and attained good working conditions can go on to exploit mamagement by making unreasonable demands. It’s the ripping people off that everyone should be able to agree on here. It’s not fair when a CEO does it to their employees and it’s not fair when workers try to gouge the boss. Nobody wins.
“And what I meant by devil’s advocate was that the attitude behind coments like “I’m not here to share the wealth” seemed inconsistent with a guy who fundraises for homeless people. You are clearly a complex individual…just when I think I have you all figured out…. :)”ha ha, i seperate my personal goals from my commitments to my community. I do not do one at the expense of the other. I try to make as much for myself in my work time. I raise for others in some of my spare time. Many of the autoworks do have profit sharing. they get a check just like the CEO. There is a point where there is workers happy, and then led by tyrants that are all about the money. I gave Buzz Hargrove of the CAW as an example.
A lot of CEOs have a salary plus a performance bonus. And a lot of companies have profit sharing with the workers for that situation. The problem with pay raises for workers is that it can’t be taken back.Incidentally, for a publically traded company, they have shareholder meetings. So if something happens, like a company has a shit year, losses money, and still gets their bonus, it still has to get past the shareholders. So unless it was a planned loss, due to massive capital investments or something, generally people get pissed if the Guy shit the bed and got extra money for it. That’s part of the checks and balances that are in place. It’s not the place of the gov’t to legislate how much a CEO can get paid.Incidentally, to the original poster, learn the differences between ‘their, there, and they’re’ and ‘here/hear’, no/know, would/wood, etc. The different speelings have different meanings, plus you look like an ignorant eedgit.
MIles, that is the point i made earlier, it is impossible to please all sides is more what i have been saying. To target one, is sorta bad, but the actions of the others isnt any better.
I agree with you Miles, like everything else in life, it’s about balance.The last thing I want to say about that is a big part of this is cultural in that people don’t want to take responsibility for their failures (not there or they’re). They’re (see? Different) perfectly happy to take responsibility when things go well though. I remember seeing in the paper a few years ago that a CEO of a major japanese company actually resigned and took a job somewhere in the bottom of the organization when it did poorly (either lost money or just broke even, can’t remember). That’s some serious commitment to personal responsibility. ALthough I guess here a shitty CEO will just be out of a job. But still, that’s pretty admirable.So there (just had to work that in to cover all three)
“there is only one way to ensure those jobs stay in Canada, and that is make concessions to them companies” Then the companies are dictating government policy, not the people. That is NOT democracy and should not be tolerated.
tough to do on this side of the world…. the set up in the states doesnt really allow for it, and too many nations in the rest of the world have political structural issues to worry about that. It is a problem that would take a whole lotta people to end thier greed to allow this uthopian idea. Unfortunately, its a lot of people’s nature to want the other person to be the one to make that scarifice first.
“Then the companies are dictating government policy, not the people. That is NOT democracy and should not be tolerated.”Well, actually it is. If that company up and moves, who replaces the jobs that it provided?
But it is not so hard to align ourselves with countries working toward the same end. Canada should be snuggling up to the EU and climbing out of bed with the US. NAFTA has only worked for a small and wealthy elite and I am glad it’s an American election issue.
Yourmom….so you are saying that if your choices and responsibilites made your company $1 billion dollars in profit, that money should go to the share holders and you would think that your $200,000 is okay by you? WOW….. dont play the lottery, you might win more than a million, and CLEARLY no one deserves that. Especially not the guy that is keeping 1000’s of $10-$12 dollar workers employed
only one problem with that happening miles…. we are already WAYYYYYY to in bed with the US to get out.