Originally Posted by
Andres
I'm flabbergasted, really.
The idea that a company would fire you if you try to unionise to ask to get paid a bit more than a fricking 4 dollar an hour. And you have politicians defending such companies?
In the United States, we have politicians whose careers are owed to the big businesses which fund their campaigns, and the two political monopolies in our capital who basically select our candidates for us, and suppress anyone who doesn't conform to the party's wishes, and if you can't get several business endorsements, you will never get enough advertisement to compete with a major candidate.
Politicians rarely address the labor class when trying to get votes. They talk about the "shrinking middle class" and talk about tax cuts for the middle class, etc, because those are people who will donate, and likely vote, and who could use a tax cut. The labor class doesn't have much money, often does not vote (nobody represents us anyway) and tax cuts are meaningless to us because most of our money gets spent on basic services and we don't pay much in income tax. We also don't have the time or the money to spend on campaigning. That sort of thing is meant for people who have several days off from work (I worked 11 days in a row last week, had one day off, and worked another 7 days in a row this week, and I still don't have any money, because I owe more than I have, so it's already spent.)
With no money, no ability to campaign, and no one representing us vote-wise, and with candidates hand-picked from the entrenched, wealthy, powerful parties who are both married to big business, exactly why would we have much enthusiasm for voting, and why would politicians turn away from their big-money contributors and important middle-class voters to pander to people who can't volunteer, can't donate, and make demands for promises the upper and middle class voters won't like?
It's a simple choice. Take the wealthy and powerful voters, and give no reason for the labor class to even vote. And if they didn't like you, they could only affect a close election anyway since they can't campaign or advertise against you.
Trust me, I abhor our campaign process.
What morons vote for such inhuman beings?
The morons who have a vested interest in keeping businesses profitable, powerful, and in control of the labor market. The morons who could use a middle-class tax break, and are interested in ordering pizza every week at the lowest price possible.
Everyone votes for themselves. People are selfish; if the politicians are addressing the needs of the rich and the middle class, who cares about the poor? Not the upper class. Not the middle class. Not the businesses. Not the consumers. Not the politicians. So who?
In who's interest exactly is it that it is perfectly legal that people get paid 4 $ an hour? Why do you guys take that kind of crap?
I was unemployed for two years, and went over 2,000 dollars in debt. Before I got this job, I was down to just enough money for rent that month, and hadn't gotten groceries in a long time. I got insurance, and got my license back...
And spent the last bit of money I had on making sure my car was street-worthy and legal to drive for this job, before I was even confirmed to have gotten the job.
I told pevergreen I was "risking it all" on this job, because after years of looking, and only a month's rent left to spare anyway, and no other prospects, that meant if I didn't get this job, the extra month of rent wasn't going to do me any good anyway. It was either bet the entire farm on getting the job, or don't bother going for a second interview.
When you need a job that badly that you're willing to spend your last couple hundred dollars on a *chance* that you'll get hired, that means you can't afford to be picky, and you can't afford to rock the boat. There's no way I have
any choice but to take that kind of crap.
Oh yes, there are probably thousands of people waiting to get that crappy 4 $ an hour job, because it's better than nothing.
After just under two months of employment at my store, I am now one of the most senior drivers they have. There are literally a dozen people newer than me.
Why is that? Because the people who were not in dire straits looked and looked for a job, and after putting up with this nonsense for a while, and after getting robbed, and after seeing their wages cut, they decided they didn't want to risk bodily harm and their vehicles driving through a crime-infested neighborhood to deliver hot pizzas to ungrateful, non-tipping customers for 4 dollars an hour.
They had the means and the opportunity to get away from this, and they voted with their feet, and left Mizza Mut.
Meh. You guys should go on strike and the unemployed should simply refuse such jobs.
Can't.
I'm being serious when I said I spent the last of my money gambling I'd get this job. That was borrowed money, too, by the way, which I am now working towards repaying.
When you have a choice, after exhausting all the money you saved up for college, and thensome, of either accepting a job at half your former pay, or literally having no roof over your head, no money for gasoline, no legal way of driving your car, no reason to because you have no place to go....
Honestly, you lack the ability to fight the system. There is no "refuse such jobs". There is no strike. There is no one for all and all for one. If there were a union, I'd have been the scab that worked while the workers who were unionized went on strike.
There is no idealism. There is no fight. There is no choice, there is only bread. No one is going to care that they can't get pizza unless they go to the store and pick it up. No one would care, except Mizza Mut, as that affects their profits. But they are a big, massive, well-fed dog. They can afford a contest to see who starves first. Again, I can't form a union, and I won't, because I can't risk my job. And with the current economic conditions, Mizza Mut just hires the unemployed and feels no ill effects for the strike.
It's supply and demand. If I were a homeowner dead-set on selling a house for what I paid for it, and not half what I paid for it, and I refused to budge on the price, and no one ever bought it, but I really needed to sell my house, then I have not accomplished what I set out to do, but shot myself in the foot.
It doesn't matter if the market says the price is half of what it's worth to me. It doesn't matter if it's fair. It only matters what I can get for it. Just like the job; it doesn't matter if I am worth double what I'm getting paid. It doesn't matter if I deserve a tip. If I don't get what I want, I have no recourse. I just have to accept what I can get.
Here's some interesting info about Wal-Mart's anti-union stance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...ion_opposition
Admittedly, I have not done a whole lot of studying on this subject. I'm not a rabidly pro-union person, not until wages get cut in half arbitrarily. When I worked at Wal-Mart I was fine with getting paid 9 dollars an hour, after several raises. That was enough for me, and I lacked the time or the energy to bother thinking about demanding more. I was focusing on college anyway.
I do know, however, that Wal-Mart is pretty brutal when it comes to spreading their message about how bad unions are, and how ruthless they are in destroying any that attempt to spring up.
You need a few protest marches. This is a disgrace. How can you possibly encourage or even defend blatant exploitation of people in the name of "freedom" and "a free market" and at the same time still be able to look at yourself in the mirror.
When you live in a nice house, drive a nice car, and don't have to worry about your life being ruined if that transmission blows, then you need not concern yourself with the fairness of capitalism. You just enjoy it's rewards.
4 $ an hour and the illusion that you'll get tips? And you have to use your own car for delivering pizza's? They can't give you a bike from the company?
It's less profitable for the company to risk its own assets on the road. It's really dangerous out there. Cars can be damaged, stolen, and they break down and require maintenance.
Why would a company with 100% of the leverage risk it's own assets when it can risk mine? Heck, if my car gets stolen, and it did, then the
employee pays the 1,000 dollar deductible for the damage/towing/storage/administrative costs when it was recovered. That's even less risk to Mizza Mut.
What sane company with shareholders to think about would have company vehicles? Lower overhead costs means we can keep prices lower longer than our competitors, and if an employee suffers a vehicle-related loss, we can just replace him with another unemployed bum. We don't care about the employee. We care about the bottom line, as every company should.
Our unions here in Europe are sometimes nothing more than a bunch of spoiled brats
They can get that way. And then, when the company does poorly and customers shop elsewhere, they have to make concessions on pensions and wages. The market pushes back. A fair market does a pretty good job of adjusting itself like that.
but clearly, in the US, unions are urgently needed and you guys need to go on strike and protest asap. Ignore the shareholders and employers'
that you'll make things worse and that you're communists. Why would anyone accept this?
As long as there are millions of unemployed, waiting for work.... there will be no improvement. Unions wouldn't even help.
Big companies realize this, and even though most have recovered from the depression, are making profits, and could afford to hire more people, most of them are not doing so. They appreciate the fact that they have so much leverage, that employees are less demanding, that they're making profits in a down economy, that their jobs are secure, and that they can put more pressure on an employee and get more for their money, while being able to replace anyone at anytime.
Originally Posted by
Andres
How realistic is the poverty line of $10,830? That's about 668 € a month. You can't live from that here in Belgium, even if you're single.
I can do it, because I am absolutely ruthless in my budgeting.
$300 for rent.
$100 for insurance.
$150 for food. (5 dollars a day)
$20 for tracfone.
Gasoline covered by Mizza Mut because of the .80 per delivery.
The rest goes to repay the kind people who helped me get this far.
I can
almost get by on my hourly alone, because I work so much overtime and spend so very little of my own money.
However, I have a highly unrealistic budget, that most people cannot copy. Most people have car loans, credit card loans, cable TV, pay for their internet access (I use roomate's) and have an entertainment budget greater than zero. I spend all my free time on here, and enjoying free entertainment on the internet. I haven't bought or rented a movie in ages. The last computer game I bought was.... Civilization IV? Or something?
I also have such low rent because my bedroom is basically a large closet. There's enough room for the bed with a laptop at the end of it, and a pile of my clothes. Beggars can't be choosers.
You couldn't come close to this in an urban center, where a lot of people live, because rent is much, much higher.
Re: WalMart: Helping the Poor, Despised by (some) Urban Liberals
Reply With Quote
.jpg "Meneldil's Avatar")
Bookmarks