November 13, 2008 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #624963
You want proof? Done.
In 2000, the meat-cutting department of a Wal-Mart in Jacksonville, Texas voted in favor of unionizing. Wal-Mart’s response was to eliminate the entire department and switch over to prepackaged meat, claiming that the decision was made based solely on efficiency and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with unionization. After a lengthy battle in court, a National Labor Relations Board judge ordered Wal-Mart to reintroduce the meat-cutting department and recognize the union.
I mentioned before that Wal-Mart closed down a store in Quebec because its workers had voted for a union. in September 2005, the Quebec Labor Board ruled in favor of the workers, stating that there was ample evidence to suggest that the store employees had lost their jobs as a direct result of voting to unionize. Hearings to determine compensation for these employees are still in progress.
Wal-Mart is faced with approximately 5,000 lawsuits a year. Do you think an honest, law-abiding company would be sued so much, and lose so often? Maybe you’ve heard of Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores. It’s the largest class-action lawsuit in American history; 1.6 million women sought compensation for workplace discrimination. It’s a clear fact that women at Wal-Mart are paid less than men for the same work, and tend to remain “stuck” in the lowest-ranking positions as their male colleagues receive promotion after promotion. Dukes v. Wal-Mart was first filed in June 2001. The plaintiffs won the case in District Court; Wal-Mart promptly appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In February 2007, a decision was handed down, again in favor of the women. Wal-Mart still continues to appeal and take all legal actions possible to stall and try to get out of paying these women what they owe. Hopefully, the charade won’t continue much longer. (See Liza Featherstone’s book for the full story on this lawsuit.)
Oh, and Joseph: Sam Walton is dead.November 13, 2008 9:22 pm at 9:22 pm #624964
I recall that well. They outsourced their meat packing to outside vendors. Purely economical. Sure the union went berserk. Where is a NLRB decision ordering them to reverse? I’ve seen no such action. (Though wouldn’t be shocked, as the nlrb is staffed by pro-union hacks.)
If its within their legal rights to close a store, before or after unionization, I say go for it. The unions are run by thugs, and any sane business tries to keep them away.
The biggest employer in America… I’m surprised there aren’t MORE lawsuits. Any yodle can sue for whatever they want.
Any more talking-points from those union websites? Why not just post the link, instead of cut-and-paste.
Yes, I am aware of that. G-d bless Sam Walton’s soul. May he rest in peace.November 13, 2008 9:38 pm at 9:38 pm #624965yoshiMember
I prefer Target.November 13, 2008 9:43 pm at 9:43 pm #624966lgbgMember
A little of a misconception with zappos:
It is not cheap, they are completely overpriced and their styles are so behind.
Why dont you try out Macy’s or Lord & Taylor… they all have sales coming up. And atleast getting worth for your money.November 13, 2008 9:56 pm at 9:56 pm #624967
I assume the New York Times is a good enough source for you?
“If its (sic) within their legal rights to close a store, before or after unionization, I say go for it.”
That’s exactly the point, that in the Quebec example, it most certainly was NOT within their legal rights.
I really hope your penultimate statement was not meant as an accusation of plagiarism.November 13, 2008 10:15 pm at 10:15 pm #624968
To quote the article:
“Under a Supreme Court precedent, a company can close a particular operation without negotiating a closing with a union. But it must negotiate over the effects of such a decision on workers.”
The judge merely ordered them to negotiate the effects of the closing. He ruled Wal-Mart had the right to close the department.
My point is that you parrot the union funded propoganda machines, as those websites you so dutifully linked to.
I say all the power to Wal-Mart, and I hope they continue their massive success in the future.
(P.S. keep your (sic)’s to yourself. A fast-paced forum is not a spelling bee.)November 13, 2008 11:36 pm at 11:36 pm #624969eric55Participant
Nordstrom is the way to go you can buy a $500 pair wear them for a year then return them no questions asked. God bless america!November 14, 2008 2:10 am at 2:10 am #624970veyatzivMember
Instead of wasting so much time looking at all the websites if you have a car it would probably be a lot faster to just go to a store on thirteenth ave. There are a bunch. I usually found Step-n-Style to be pretty reasonable and they have a nice selection.In case you don’t find there just walk across the street to shoe plaza or something to that effect. Or you can go to Kings Highway and just walk into some of the stores someone mentioned above.November 14, 2008 2:58 am at 2:58 am #624971dont have internetMember
if u want to get a cheep pair on 13th ave, u have to spend 80$ i dont know about u but i cant bring myself to spend even 50$ on a pair of shoes(ok i know im cheep but till recently i did amazing in places like payless,walmart,kmart for 12.99 and now im having such issues finding a normal pair)November 14, 2008 3:27 am at 3:27 am #624972mazal77Participant
This thread was about shoes. How in the world did we get in to a discussion on Unions?? I know, blame Walmart!!!! LOL. Okay, so back to the topic of shoes, like I mentioned in earlier posts, there are TONS and I mean TONS of shoe stores on Kingshwy in Brooklyn between the streets of East 9th street and East 15th street. I forgot to mention a few more in that area. Shoe Warehouse, Sandal Rouge, Beverly Boutique has a shoe Department. Zena shoe’s (also has children’s shoes) There is also a Payless and a Fabco(right next to a Steve Madden, yeah 3 shoe stores in a row) So come into Brooklyn for the day and park someplace close with no meter and walk a few blocks or take the B express(doesn’t run on weekends)or the Q local to the Kings Highway station. I suggest try praying that you should be Matzliach and find something reasonable and nice, with Hashem’s help. With stores in the area in all price ranges, you should be able to find something.November 14, 2008 11:16 am at 11:16 am #624973
Joseph, as I have said, I’ve done ample research on Wal-Mart and examined the corporation from EVERY angle. This means I’ve looked at pro- as well as anti- Wal-Mart sources. Those two websites happened to pop into my head as I was writing my response because they are two of the most comprehensive and informative websites out there. They may be funded by unions, but the information available on the sites deals with other issues at Wal-Mart as well (and believe me, there are plenty!) I haven’t been “parroting” information from those sites; in fact, I didn’t even look at them for confirmation before posting my reply. (You see that I quoted the NYT and not either of those websites.)
I don’t see how an observant Jew or any ethical individual can shop at Wal-Mart. Not all of what they do is illegal (although a great deal of it is!) but regardless of what American, Canadian or other law says, it’s categorically wrong. Yes, they’ve made a great success for themselves- at the expense of their store employees, overseas workers, and often even their customers.
There’s a very fine distinction in the judge’s ruling which I think you may have overlooked. True, Wal-Mart had the right to close the meat-cutting department, but only if they met certain conditions (which they did not.) The corporation did not have the right to stam close it without negotiating with the workers, and they broke the law in doing so. That’s why the judge ordered them to reopen the department until they had fulfilled these conditions.
(P.S. It seems that you and I view this forum differently. I never think of it as “fast-paced” because I only post when I have the time to sit down and read through the replies slowly before writing my own well thought out response. I suppose others here just dash off replies, but that’s not the way I do it. As I said in another topic, correct spelling and grammar shows that some careful thought went into a post and that it was read through at least once before the writer pressed the Send button. It’s just proper stylistic form to write (sic) when quoting a grammatically incorrect sentence to show that the mistake was made by the original writer and not the quoter.)November 14, 2008 1:29 pm at 1:29 pm #624974
As have I.
And you are blatantly incorrect, as I have amply demonstrated. Nor will I continue going in circles with you on this.November 16, 2008 6:32 am at 6:32 am #624975dont have internetMember
thanx for the suggestions….keep em coming
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.