Discussion:
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart
(too old to reply)
citizenjoe
2004-01-18 06:52:32 UTC
Permalink
New York Times
January 18, 2004

Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble
believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the
overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.

It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just
smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the
hospital.

The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft. As usual, there was no
manager with a key to let Mr. Rodriguez out. The fire exit, he said,
was hardly an option - management had drummed into the overnight
workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they
would lose their jobs.

"My ankle was crushed," Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been
struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of
merchandise. "I was yelling and running around like a hurt dog that
had been hit by a car. Another worker made some phone calls to reach a
manager, and it took an hour for someone to get there and unlock the
door."

The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a
little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in. For more than 15 years,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has locked in
overnight employees at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores. It
is a policy that many employees say has created disconcerting
situations, such as when a worker in Indiana suffered a heart attack,
when hurricanes hit in Florida and when workers' wives have gone into
labor.

"You could be bleeding to death, and they'll have you locked in," Mr.
Rodriguez said. "Being locked in in an emergency like that, that's not
right."

Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime
areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers - the company calls them
associates - at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has
declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.

Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500
stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that
every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to
let workers out in emergencies.

"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that
has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked
to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are
always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one
manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."

Ms. Williams said individual store managers, rather than headquarters,
decided whether to lock workers in, depending on the crime rate in
their area.

Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's
lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R"
Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.

Even some retail industry experts questioned the policy. "It's clearly
cause for concern," said Burt Flickinger, who runs a retail consulting
concern. "Locking in workers, that's more of a 19th-century practice
than a 20th-century one."

Several Wal-Mart employees said that as recently as a few months ago
they had been locked in on some nights without a manager who had a
key. Robert Schuster said that until last October, when he left his
job at a Sam's Club in Colorado Springs, workers were locked in every
night, and on Friday and Saturday nights there was no one there with a
key. One night, he recalled, a worker had been throwing up violently,
and no one had a store key to let him out.

"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire
door and there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big
lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an
emergency like the place going up on fire."

Augustine Herrera, who worked at the Colorado Springs store for nine
years, disputed the company's assertion that it locked workers in
stores in only high-crime areas, largely to protect employees.

"The store is in a perfectly safe area," Mr. Herrera said.

Several employees said Wal-Mart began making sure that there was
someone with a key seven nights a week at the Colorado Springs store
and other stores starting Jan. 1, shortly after The New York Times
began making inquiries about employees' being locked in.

The main reason that Wal-Mart and Sam's stores lock in workers,
several former store managers said, was not to protect employees but
to stop "shrinkage" - theft by employees and outsiders.

Tom Lewis, who managed four Sam's Clubs in Texas and Tennessee, said:
"It's to prevent shrinkage. Wal-Mart is like any other company.
They're concerned about the bottom line, and the bottom line is
affected by shrinkage in the store."

Another reason for lock-ins, he said, was to increase efficiency -
workers could not sneak outside to smoke a cigarette, get high or make
a quick trip home.

Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged that the seemingly obvious thing to have
done after breaking his ankle was to leave by the fire door, but he
and two dozen other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club workers said they had
repeatedly been warned never to do that unless there was a fire.
Leaving for any other reason, they said, could jeopardize the jobs of
the offending employee and the night supervisor.

Regarding Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Williams said, "He was clearly capable of
walking out a fire door anytime during the night."

She added: "We tell associates that common sense has to prevail. Fire
doors are for emergencies, and by all means use them if you have
emergencies. We have no way of knowing what any individual manager
said to an associate."

None of the Wal-Mart workers interviewed said they knew anyone who had
been fired for violating the fire-exit policy in an emergency, but
several said they knew workers who had received official reprimands,
the first step toward firing. Several said managers had told them of
firing workers for such an offense.

"They let us know they'd fire people for going out the fire door,
unless there was a fire." said Farris Cobb, who was a night supervisor
at several Sam's Clubs in Florida. "They instilled in us they had done
it before and they would do it again."

Mr. Cobb and several other workers interviewed about lock-ins were
plaintiffs in lawsuits accusing Wal-Mart of forcing them to work off
the clock, for example working several hours without pay after their
shifts ended. Wal-Mart says it tells managers never to let employees
work off the clock.

Janet Anderson, who was a night supervisor at a Sam's Club in Colorado
from 1996 to 2002, said that many of her employees were also airmen
stationed at a nearby Air Force base. Their commanders sometimes
called the store to order them to report to duty immediately, but she
said they often had to wait until a manager arrived around 6 a.m. She
said one airman received a reprimand from management for leaving by
the fire door to report for duty.

Ms. Anderson also told of a worker who had broken his foot one night
while using a cardboard box baler and had to wait four hours for
someone to open the door. She said the store's managers had lied to
her and the overnight crew, telling them the fire doors could not be
physically opened by the workers and that the doors would open
automatically when the fire alarm was triggered.

Only after several years as night supervisor did she learn that she
could open the fire door from inside, she said, but she was told she
faced dismissal if she opened it when there was no fire. One night,
she said, she cut her finger badly with a box cutter but dared not go
out the fire exit - waiting until morning to get 13 stitches at a
hospital.

The federal government and almost all states do not bar locking in
workers so long as they have access to an emergency exit. But several
longtime Wal-Mart workers recalled that in the late 1980's and early
1990's, the fire doors of some Wal-Marts were chained shut.

Wal-Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an
overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in
1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the
employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there
was no manager with a key.

"We certainly do not do that now," Ms. Williams said. "It's not been
that way for a long time."

Explaining the policy, she said, "Only about 10 percent of our stores
do not allow associates to come and go at will, and these are
generally in higher crime areas where the associates' safety is
considered an issue."

Mr. Lewis, the former store manager, said he had been willing to get
out of bed at any hour to drive back to his store to unlock the door
in an emergency. But he said many Sam's Club managers were not as
responsive. "Sometimes you couldn't get hold of a manager," he said.
"The tendency of managers was to sleep through the nights. They let
the answering machine pick up."

Mr. Cobb, the overnight supervisor in Florida, said he remembered once
when a stocker was deathly sick, throwing up repeatedly. He said he
called the store manager at home and told him, " `You need to come let
this person out.' He said: `Find one of the mattresses. Have him lay
down on the floor.'

"I went into certain situations like that, and I called store
managers, and they pretty much told me that they wouldn't come in to
unlock the door. So I would call another manager, and a lot of times
they would tell you that they were on their way, when they weren't."

Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.

Roy Ellsworth Jr., who was a cashier at a Wal-Mart in Pueblo, Colo.,
said he was normally scheduled to work until the store closed at 10
p.m., but most nights management locked the front door, at closing
time, and did not let workers leave until everyone had straightened up
the store.

"They would keep us there for however long they wanted," Mr. Ellsworth
said. "It was often for half an hour, and it could be two hours or
longer during Christmas season."

One night, shortly after closing time, Mr. Ellsworth had an asthma
attack. "My inhaler hardly helped," he said. "I couldn't breathe. I
felt I was going to pass out. I got fuzzy vision. I told the assistant
manager I really needed to go to the hospital. He pretty much got in
my face and told me not to leave or I'd get fired. I was having
trouble standing. When I finally told him I was going to call a
lawyer, he finally let me out."

One top Wal-Mart official said: "If those things happened five or six
years ago, we're a very large company with more that 3,000 stores, and
individual instances like that could happen. That's certainly not
something Wal-Mart would condone."

----------------------------------
Don Klipstein
2004-01-18 08:01:27 UTC
Permalink
New York Times January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
<SNIP>
The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft.
<SNIP>
The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a
little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in.
Well-known to heavy Usenet readers! The obvious reason - to have
Wal-Mart workers working off-the-clock!
<SNIP>
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime
areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers - the company calls them
associates - at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has
declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500
stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that
every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to
let workers out in emergencies.
"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that
has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked
to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are
always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one
manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."
Ms. Williams said individual store managers, rather than headquarters,
decided whether to lock workers in, depending on the crime rate in
their area.
Or higher store managers largely being required or "facing heavy
incentives" to have payroll costs not exceeding 20% of their stores'
sales...
Saw that in a past thread on Wal-Mart, with more followup blaming victim
employees for keeping/needing Wal-Mart jobs than denying that this
occurred!
Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's
lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R"
Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.
And I hear a lot in past threads that Wal-Mart does this, and I never
hear of any of their major competitors doing this (My best friend worked
for Target and quit after finding a better job and does not claim Target
tried to make him work off-the-clock, more like made him "anally" follow
rules against timekeeping abuse), and I hear more people blaming Wal-Mart
employees for not bettering themselves to en extent to be able to work
elsewhere than I hear denying that Wal-Mart does this!

<SNIP a few pages of allegations milder than ones that draw more followup
posts blaming Wal-Mart employees for being unable to get better jobs than
followup posts denying that such Wal-Mart locks in employees to make them
work off the clock>

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
Roger
2004-01-18 11:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Klipstein
New York Times January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
<SNIP>
The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft.
<SNIP>
The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a
little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in.
Well-known to heavy Usenet readers! The obvious reason - to have
Wal-Mart workers working off-the-clock!
<SNIP>
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime
areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers - the company calls them
associates - at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has
declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500
stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that
every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to
let workers out in emergencies.
"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that
has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked
to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are
always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one
manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."
Ms. Williams said individual store managers, rather than headquarters,
decided whether to lock workers in, depending on the crime rate in
their area.
Or higher store managers largely being required or "facing heavy
incentives" to have payroll costs not exceeding 20% of their stores'
sales...
Saw that in a past thread on Wal-Mart, with more followup blaming victim
employees for keeping/needing Wal-Mart jobs than denying that this
occurred!
Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's
lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R"
Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.
And I hear a lot in past threads that Wal-Mart does this, and I never
hear of any of their major competitors doing this (My best friend worked
for Target and quit after finding a better job and does not claim Target
tried to make him work off-the-clock, more like made him "anally" follow
rules against timekeeping abuse), and I hear more people blaming Wal-Mart
employees for not bettering themselves to en extent to be able to work
elsewhere than I hear denying that Wal-Mart does this!
They pay little more than McDonalds. You aren't going to get the best
workers or the best effort. You get what you pay for.
Post by Don Klipstein
<SNIP a few pages of allegations milder than ones that draw more followup
posts blaming Wal-Mart employees for being unable to get better jobs than
followup posts denying that such Wal-Mart locks in employees to make them
work off the clock>
Ward Stewart
2004-01-19 08:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Klipstein
New York Times January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
<SNIP>
The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft.
<SNIP>
The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a
little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in.
Well-known to heavy Usenet readers! The obvious reason - to have
Wal-Mart workers working off-the-clock!
<SNIP>
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime
areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers - the company calls them
associates - at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has
declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500
stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that
every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to
let workers out in emergencies.
SURELY, this cannot pass muster with the fire departments or the
insurance underwriters involved??

ward
Post by Don Klipstein
"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that
has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked
to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are
always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one
manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."
Ms. Williams said individual store managers, rather than headquarters,
decided whether to lock workers in, depending on the crime rate in
their area.
Or higher store managers largely being required or "facing heavy
incentives" to have payroll costs not exceeding 20% of their stores'
sales...
Saw that in a past thread on Wal-Mart, with more followup blaming victim
employees for keeping/needing Wal-Mart jobs than denying that this
occurred!
Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's
lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R"
Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.
And I hear a lot in past threads that Wal-Mart does this, and I never
hear of any of their major competitors doing this (My best friend worked
for Target and quit after finding a better job and does not claim Target
tried to make him work off-the-clock, more like made him "anally" follow
rules against timekeeping abuse), and I hear more people blaming Wal-Mart
employees for not bettering themselves to en extent to be able to work
elsewhere than I hear denying that Wal-Mart does this!
<SNIP a few pages of allegations milder than ones that draw more followup
posts blaming Wal-Mart employees for being unable to get better jobs than
followup posts denying that such Wal-Mart locks in employees to make them
work off the clock>
-----------------------------------------------------
"All forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally
wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans
everywhere," the widow of Martin Luther King Jr. told
activists gathered for the National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force’s 13th annual Creating Change conference.
She continued: "I appeal to everyone who believes in
Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the
table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian
and gay people."
Coretta Scott King
------------------------------------------------------
Stephan Mynarkiewicz
2004-01-19 13:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ward Stewart
SURELY, this cannot pass muster with the fire departments or the
insurance underwriters involved??
Unless there's fire inspectors/insurance underwriters that regularly work
overnight, they're none the wiser.
Roger
2004-01-19 14:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephan Mynarkiewicz
Post by Ward Stewart
SURELY, this cannot pass muster with the fire departments or the
insurance underwriters involved??
Unless there's fire inspectors/insurance underwriters that regularly work
overnight, they're none the wiser.
There's a bookstore I frequent that put a big display in front of a fire
exit after someone used it to steal some CDs. It was there for a month.
Neo Fight
2004-01-20 06:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Too stupid to use the fire exit.
George Grapman
2004-01-20 11:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neo Fight
Too stupid to use the fire exit.
Too bad the part about the company telling people that using that exit
for anything other than a fire would result in being fired went over
your head.


--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Frank
2004-01-20 17:19:15 UTC
Permalink
So what if there is an earthquake and the building starts falling around
them, was Mr. Rodriguez going to stand there and be crushed rather than use
the emergency exit? Are we as a society supposed to throw out the concept of
common sense entirely? You know, good ole subjective judgement?
Post by George Grapman
Post by Neo Fight
Too stupid to use the fire exit.
Too bad the part about the company telling people that using that exit
for anything other than a fire would result in being fired went over
your head.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
a***@invalid.net
2004-01-20 21:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
So what if there is an earthquake and the building starts falling around
them, was Mr. Rodriguez going to stand there and be crushed rather than use
the emergency exit? Are we as a society supposed to throw out the concept of
common sense entirely? You know, good ole subjective judgement?
Under the circumstances you have created for your argument, use of the
emergency exit would be acceptable to management, but then considering
that the walls will have come tumbling down, this becomes moot since
he would be wise to take advantage of the closest opening to escape
from the building or what was left of it!
rick++
2004-01-20 19:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Grapman
Post by Neo Fight
Too stupid to use the fire exit.
Too bad the part about the company telling people that using that exit
for anything other than a fire would result in being fired went over
your head.
Some cities will charge a several thousand dollar fine for a false-alarm,
hence the injunction against such using fire exits.
Cant have Walmart paying out more expenses, can we?
Dave C.
2004-01-20 22:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick++
Post by George Grapman
Too bad the part about the company telling people that using that exit
for anything other than a fire would result in being fired went over
your head.
Some cities will charge a several thousand dollar fine for a false-alarm,
hence the injunction against such using fire exits.
Cant have Walmart paying out more expenses, can we?
Ummmm . . . a fire exit door alarm is a LOCAL alarm. Even if you pull a
pull box inside a wal-mart or similar, that still won't notify the fire
department. If there was a prohibition against crashing a fire door, my
best guess would be that the night manager was afraid it would interrupt his
sleep. -Dave
Scott in Aztlán
2004-01-21 02:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Grapman
Post by Neo Fight
Too stupid to use the fire exit.
Too bad the part about the company telling people that using that exit
for anything other than a fire would result in being fired went over
your head.
Too stupid to use common sense and realize that a) they wouldn't have fired him,
and b) it's better to be fired than to bleed to death.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
a***@invalid.net
2004-01-21 15:36:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:13:51 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
Post by Scott in Aztlán
Too stupid to use common sense and realize that a) they wouldn't have fired him,
and b) it's better to be fired than to bleed to death.
You are not taking what can be expected from employees that they
employ when you make references to common sense - they do not normally
employ persons who are capable of independent thought or display any
degree of "common sense"
JoettaB
2004-01-21 16:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in Aztlán
Post by George Grapman
Post by Neo Fight
Too stupid to use the fire exit.
Too bad the part about the company telling people that using that exit
for anything other than a fire would result in being fired went over
your head.
Too stupid to use common sense and realize that a) they wouldn't have fired him,
and b) it's better to be fired than to bleed to death.
a) he probably knew they'd fired people in the past for doing the same thing
and b) pathetic though it may be, the job probably kept him and his family
off welfare.
Post by Scott in Aztlán
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
JoettaB
2004-01-21 16:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neo Fight
Too stupid to use the fire exit.
None were available to them. duh.
Frank
2004-01-21 18:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoettaB
Post by Neo Fight
Too stupid to use the fire exit.
None were available to them. duh.
Where did you get this idea?
Salad
2004-01-18 08:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by citizenjoe
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500
stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that
every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to
let workers out in emergencies.
Well DUH! How stupid does Walmart have to be to finally figure out a key
should be made available for an emergency?

Walmart reminds me of that chicken plucking plant in the Carolinas that
burned down with all of its workers inside.
Dave C.
2004-01-18 16:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by citizenjoe
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
HEY!!! Wouldn't this be false arrest? To arrest someone is to restrict
their freedom of movement. If they aren't allowed to leave the building,
they are in fact ARRESTED. Couldn't the wally world bigwigs face criminal
charges for practices like this? -Dave
William Boyd
2004-01-18 17:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave C.
Post by citizenjoe
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
HEY!!! Wouldn't this be false arrest? To arrest someone is to restrict
their freedom of movement. If they aren't allowed to leave the building,
they are in fact ARRESTED. Couldn't the wally world bigwigs face criminal
charges for practices like this? -Dave
No not false arrest, Kidnapping, Maybe.
--
Posted by HOPPIE, 30 Years Active Duty ,13 Campaigns Vietnam, Life
Member; Am.Lgn,DAV,VFW,AFSA
Dave C.
2004-01-18 19:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Boyd
Post by Dave C.
Post by citizenjoe
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
HEY!!! Wouldn't this be false arrest? To arrest someone is to restrict
their freedom of movement. If they aren't allowed to leave the building,
they are in fact ARRESTED. Couldn't the wally world bigwigs face criminal
charges for practices like this? -Dave
No not false arrest, Kidnapping, Maybe.
Whatever. Couldn't the Wal-Mart CEO be locked up for a while for such
criminal behavior? -Dave
Frank
2004-01-18 22:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Yes, any employer who requires that their workers stay at their post if they
expect to keep their jobs should all go to jail for false arrest and
kidnapping!!! Excuse me while I laugh my ass off!!
Post by Dave C.
Post by William Boyd
Post by Dave C.
Post by citizenjoe
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
HEY!!! Wouldn't this be false arrest? To arrest someone is to restrict
their freedom of movement. If they aren't allowed to leave the
building,
Post by William Boyd
Post by Dave C.
they are in fact ARRESTED. Couldn't the wally world bigwigs face
criminal
Post by William Boyd
Post by Dave C.
charges for practices like this? -Dave
No not false arrest, Kidnapping, Maybe.
Whatever. Couldn't the Wal-Mart CEO be locked up for a while for such
criminal behavior? -Dave
Anon
2004-01-18 22:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Yes, any employer who requires that their workers stay at their post if they
expect to keep their jobs should all go to jail for false arrest and
kidnapping!!! Excuse me while I laugh my ass off!!
Tell ya what. Go to work. Work your entire shift. Punch out. Now
discover the door is locked and your manager won't open it for FIVE HOURS.
Now are you laughing? This has nothing to do with an employer expecting an
employee to stay at their post on the clock, it is about an employer not
allowing an employee to leave when the employee is NOT working. -Dave
Frank
2004-01-18 23:57:52 UTC
Permalink
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will laugh if
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is Wal-Mart the
ONLY retailer that practices this? Can anyone say that? Of course, only
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in making
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
Yes, any employer who requires that their workers stay at their post if
they
Post by Frank
expect to keep their jobs should all go to jail for false arrest and
kidnapping!!! Excuse me while I laugh my ass off!!
Tell ya what. Go to work. Work your entire shift. Punch out. Now
discover the door is locked and your manager won't open it for FIVE HOURS.
Now are you laughing? This has nothing to do with an employer expecting an
employee to stay at their post on the clock, it is about an employer not
allowing an employee to leave when the employee is NOT working. -Dave
Anon
2004-01-18 23:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will laugh if
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is Wal-Mart the
ONLY retailer that practices this? Can anyone say that? Of course, only
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in making
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
I guess you missed the part of the article stating that in some cases
emergency fire exits were chained shut, and that the night manager didn't
have the key. So again, you have worked your shift, you have punched out as
ordered, and you find it is physically impossible to leave the building for
five hours. Still laughing? -Dave
Frank
2004-01-19 00:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Oh yeah, several workers "recall" them being chained shut...many years ago.
That sounds very credible. Any company, large or small, would be INSANE to
do such a thing. I also read where the law ALLOWS this practice, as long at
there are emergency exits. How come no one has brought this up yet??
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will laugh if
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is Wal-Mart the
ONLY retailer that practices this? Can anyone say that? Of course, only
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in making
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
I guess you missed the part of the article stating that in some cases
emergency fire exits were chained shut, and that the night manager didn't
have the key. So again, you have worked your shift, you have punched out as
ordered, and you find it is physically impossible to leave the building for
five hours. Still laughing? -Dave
Grumpy au Contraire
2004-01-19 01:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Are you totally unable to parse the English language???

The article stated that the "chained" exist WERE of the emergency type...

Frank, a true idiot has now conclusively confirmed his status as such.

Unfortunately, there is NO cure for stupidity...

JT
Post by Frank
Oh yeah, several workers "recall" them being chained shut...many years ago.
That sounds very credible. Any company, large or small, would be INSANE to
do such a thing. I also read where the law ALLOWS this practice, as long at
there are emergency exits. How come no one has brought this up yet??
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will laugh if
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is Wal-Mart the
ONLY retailer that practices this? Can anyone say that? Of course, only
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in
making
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
I guess you missed the part of the article stating that in some cases
emergency fire exits were chained shut, and that the night manager didn't
have the key. So again, you have worked your shift, you have punched out
as
Post by Anon
ordered, and you find it is physically impossible to leave the building
for
Post by Anon
five hours. Still laughing? -Dave
--
Frank
2004-01-19 01:23:50 UTC
Permalink
My last two sentences may have confused you. Apparently that's not too hard
to do? I was speaking of the Lock-in practice, not of chaining emergency
exits. Chaining emergency exits is a serious matter. What I can't seem to
parse is the pathetic VICTIM attitude around here. Yell your head off while
doing nothing with your hand out, this seems to be the prevailing attitude.
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Are you totally unable to parse the English language???
The article stated that the "chained" exist WERE of the emergency type...
Frank, a true idiot has now conclusively confirmed his status as such.
Unfortunately, there is NO cure for stupidity...
JT
Post by Frank
Oh yeah, several workers "recall" them being chained shut...many years ago.
That sounds very credible. Any company, large or small, would be INSANE to
do such a thing. I also read where the law ALLOWS this practice, as long at
there are emergency exits. How come no one has brought this up yet??
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will laugh if
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is Wal-Mart the
ONLY retailer that practices this? Can anyone say that? Of course, only
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in
making
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
I guess you missed the part of the article stating that in some cases
emergency fire exits were chained shut, and that the night manager didn't
have the key. So again, you have worked your shift, you have punched out
as
Post by Anon
ordered, and you find it is physically impossible to leave the building
for
Post by Anon
five hours. Still laughing? -Dave
--
Roger
2004-01-19 07:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
My last two sentences may have confused you. Apparently that's not too hard
to do? I was speaking of the Lock-in practice, not of chaining emergency
exits. Chaining emergency exits is a serious matter. What I can't seem to
parse is the pathetic VICTIM attitude around here. Yell your head off while
doing nothing with your hand out, this seems to be the prevailing attitude.
false imprisonment
n. depriving someone of freedom of movement by holding a person in a
confined space or by physical restraint including being locked in a car,
driven about without opportunity to get out, being tied to a chair or locked
in a closet. It may be the follow-up to a false arrest (holding someone in
the office of a department store, for example), but more often it resembles
a kidnapping with no belief or claim of a legal right to hold the person.
Therefore, false imprisonment is often a crime and if proved is almost
always the basis of a lawsuit for damages. [http://dictionary.law.com]
Post by Frank
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Are you totally unable to parse the English language???
The article stated that the "chained" exist WERE of the emergency type...
Frank, a true idiot has now conclusively confirmed his status as such.
Unfortunately, there is NO cure for stupidity...
JT
Post by Frank
Oh yeah, several workers "recall" them being chained shut...many years
ago.
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
That sounds very credible. Any company, large or small, would be
INSANE
Post by Frank
to
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
do such a thing. I also read where the law ALLOWS this practice, as
long
Post by Frank
at
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
there are emergency exits. How come no one has brought this up yet??
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will
laugh
Post by Frank
if
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is
Wal-Mart
Post by Frank
the
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
ONLY retailer that practices this? Can anyone say that? Of course,
only
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in
making
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
I guess you missed the part of the article stating that in some cases
emergency fire exits were chained shut, and that the night manager
didn't
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
have the key. So again, you have worked your shift, you have
punched
Post by Frank
out
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
as
Post by Anon
ordered, and you find it is physically impossible to leave the
building
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
for
Post by Anon
five hours. Still laughing? -Dave
--
Grumpy au Contraire
2004-01-19 10:31:37 UTC
Permalink
You need to read the Fair Labor Standards Act. When you finish, get
back to me.

JT
Post by Frank
My last two sentences may have confused you. Apparently that's not too hard
to do? I was speaking of the Lock-in practice, not of chaining emergency
exits. Chaining emergency exits is a serious matter. What I can't seem to
parse is the pathetic VICTIM attitude around here. Yell your head off while
doing nothing with your hand out, this seems to be the prevailing attitude.
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Are you totally unable to parse the English language???
The article stated that the "chained" exist WERE of the emergency type...
Frank, a true idiot has now conclusively confirmed his status as such.
Unfortunately, there is NO cure for stupidity...
JT
Post by Frank
Oh yeah, several workers "recall" them being chained shut...many years
ago.
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
That sounds very credible. Any company, large or small, would be INSANE
to
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
do such a thing. I also read where the law ALLOWS this practice, as long
at
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
there are emergency exits. How come no one has brought this up yet??
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will laugh
if
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is Wal-Mart
the
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
ONLY retailer that practices this? Can anyone say that? Of course,
only
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in
making
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
I guess you missed the part of the article stating that in some cases
emergency fire exits were chained shut, and that the night manager
didn't
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
have the key. So again, you have worked your shift, you have punched
out
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
as
Post by Anon
ordered, and you find it is physically impossible to leave the
building
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
for
Post by Anon
five hours. Still laughing? -Dave
--
--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4
Frank
2004-01-19 20:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Pardon me, both of you, but the article admits that the practice is LEGAL. I
didn't make that up, and there are no Wal-Mart execs doing time at Club Fed
to contradict this statement. Any state of affairs in this country can be
termed illegal, it's all in how you twist your words to conform to your own
agenda.
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
You need to read the Fair Labor Standards Act. When you finish, get
back to me.
JT
Post by Frank
My last two sentences may have confused you. Apparently that's not too hard
to do? I was speaking of the Lock-in practice, not of chaining emergency
exits. Chaining emergency exits is a serious matter. What I can't seem to
parse is the pathetic VICTIM attitude around here. Yell your head off while
doing nothing with your hand out, this seems to be the prevailing attitude.
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Are you totally unable to parse the English language???
The article stated that the "chained" exist WERE of the emergency type...
Frank, a true idiot has now conclusively confirmed his status as such.
Unfortunately, there is NO cure for stupidity...
JT
Post by Frank
Oh yeah, several workers "recall" them being chained shut...many years
ago.
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
That sounds very credible. Any company, large or small, would be INSANE
to
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
do such a thing. I also read where the law ALLOWS this practice, as long
at
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
there are emergency exits. How come no one has brought this up yet??
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will laugh
if
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is Wal-Mart
the
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
ONLY retailer that practices this? Can anyone say that? Of course,
only
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in
making
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
I guess you missed the part of the article stating that in some cases
emergency fire exits were chained shut, and that the night manager
didn't
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
Post by Anon
have the key. So again, you have worked your shift, you have punched
out
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
as
Post by Anon
ordered, and you find it is physically impossible to leave the
building
Post by Grumpy au Contraire
Post by Frank
for
Post by Anon
five hours. Still laughing? -Dave
--
--
JT
Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4
Don Klipstein
2004-01-19 06:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Oh yeah, several workers "recall" them being chained shut...many years ago.
That sounds very credible. Any company, large or small, would be INSANE to
do such a thing. I also read where the law ALLOWS this practice, as long at
there are emergency exits. How come no one has brought this up yet??
Why have I yet to hear anyone accuse K-Mart or Target of locking in
employees like that, and why have I yet to hear anyone accuse K-Mart or
Target of making many full-time employees work for only 28 clocked hours
per week and significant time off the clock?

I think more-brazen nastier companies would try their hand chaining fire
exits in more hostile-to-labor conservative areas, and try their hand
violating Federal labor law since the Federal labor law enforcement
budgets were gutted during the Reagan administration!

- Don Klipstein (Jr.) (***@misty.com)
The Etobian
2004-01-19 00:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon
I guess you missed the part of the article stating that in some cases
emergency fire exits were chained shut, and that the night manager didn't
have the key. So again, you have worked your shift, you have punched out as
ordered, and you find it is physically impossible to leave the building for
five hours. Still laughing? -Dave
Simple to resolve. Use a cell phone to call 911. The local fire
marshal will not be pleased.
Anon
2004-01-19 00:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Etobian
Simple to resolve. Use a cell phone to call 911. The local fire
marshal will not be pleased.
You really think wally world allows their employees to carry cell phones?
Get real. Besides which, cell phones often don't work inside a building
anyway.

If I was in a situation where I was working somewhere, punched out, and the
manager told me I couldn't leave until the door was unlocked in several
hours . . . I would find a way to go THROUGH the door (not necessarily
opening it first). In your typical warehouse club, I think a forklift might
come in very handy. (!) -Dave
The Etobian
2004-01-19 03:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon
You really think wally world allows their employees to carry cell phones?
Get real. Besides which, cell phones often don't work inside a building
anyway.
My son (aged 16) works part-time at Wally World and has a cell phone
with him. He uses it to call me for a ride home when his shift is
over. And since it's Verizon, around here, it works inside the
building.
Anon
2004-01-19 03:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Etobian
Post by Anon
You really think wally world allows their employees to carry cell phones?
Get real. Besides which, cell phones often don't work inside a building
anyway.
My son (aged 16) works part-time at Wally World and has a cell phone
with him. He uses it to call me for a ride home when his shift is
over. And since it's Verizon, around here, it works inside the
building.
That surprises me. I'm betting there are rules about using the personal
cell phone on duty though, such as prohibiting the use outright. -Dave
The Etobian
2004-01-19 04:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon
Post by The Etobian
Post by Anon
You really think wally world allows their employees to carry cell phones?
Get real. Besides which, cell phones often don't work inside a building
anyway.
My son (aged 16) works part-time at Wally World and has a cell phone
with him. He uses it to call me for a ride home when his shift is
over. And since it's Verizon, around here, it works inside the
building.
That surprises me. I'm betting there are rules about using the personal
cell phone on duty though, such as prohibiting the use outright. -Dave
I don't know every rule he might be subject to. Perhaps he's found a
way to use it while staying out of management's radar screen, like
while in the men's room.
Grumpy au Contraire
2004-01-19 10:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon
Post by The Etobian
Post by Anon
You really think wally world allows their employees to carry cell phones?
Get real. Besides which, cell phones often don't work inside a building
anyway.
My son (aged 16) works part-time at Wally World and has a cell phone
with him. He uses it to call me for a ride home when his shift is
over. And since it's Verizon, around here, it works inside the
building.
That surprises me. I'm betting there are rules about using the personal
cell phone on duty though, such as prohibiting the use outright. -Dave
Uh, there should be no reason to have a cell phone in order to leave a
place of employment. Lock-Ins such as Wal-Mart is accused of and will
probably have to settle or risk a substantial judgment are illegal from
both, a safety and labor law point of view.
--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4
Don Klipstein
2004-01-19 06:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Etobian
Post by Anon
You really think wally world allows their employees to carry cell phones?
Get real. Besides which, cell phones often don't work inside a building
anyway.
My son (aged 16) works part-time at Wally World and has a cell phone
with him. He uses it to call me for a ride home when his shift is
over. And since it's Verizon, around here, it works inside the
building.
My new cell phone works fairly well inside my work building, and my
previous one (new just a little over 2 years ago) did not. My new phone
is a Nokia model with GSM capability, and the previous one was an Eriksson
without GSM capability. For both phones my service provider was Cingular.

In either case my boss could call me into the office for it noticeably
ringing or me using it while visibly on duty, in a job surely better than
Wal-Mart! (I have a phone that I can silence and even select a silent
vibrating ring, which I think is not all that unusual.)

(OK, keep the phone in your pocket and use it while on the john! But
if I need to get on the crapper to call 911 in a case some insane WM
manager [may need to be insane to survive lowest tier management] does not
think it's worth 911, then I would run into the "Rubbermaid" area to use
my cellphone [If I worked for WM, a boss would look for me by lightbulbs
or by flashlights, camping lights or bicycles in sporting goods in the
very unlikely event I would work there before trashpicking aluminum beer
cans for scrap value!] In a really major 911 case, I would get on a
forklift and use the cellphone while driving it! OK, did I post my way
out of being able to get a job at Wal-Mart? Shop at Target or K-Mart
or hardware stores whenever and wherever you still can!!!)

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
jim
2004-01-19 14:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Would you guys mind removing soc.retirement from your group list?
Thanks
Post by Don Klipstein
Post by The Etobian
Post by Anon
You really think wally world allows their employees to carry cell phones?
Get real. Besides which, cell phones often don't work inside a building
anyway.
My son (aged 16) works part-time at Wally World and has a cell phone
with him. He uses it to call me for a ride home when his shift is
over. And since it's Verizon, around here, it works inside the
building.
My new cell phone works fairly well inside my work building, and my
previous one (new just a little over 2 years ago) did not. My new phone
is a Nokia model with GSM capability, and the previous one was an Eriksson
without GSM capability. For both phones my service provider was Cingular.
In either case my boss could call me into the office for it noticeably
ringing or me using it while visibly on duty, in a job surely better than
Wal-Mart! (I have a phone that I can silence and even select a silent
vibrating ring, which I think is not all that unusual.)
(OK, keep the phone in your pocket and use it while on the john! But
if I need to get on the crapper to call 911 in a case some insane WM
manager [may need to be insane to survive lowest tier management] does not
think it's worth 911, then I would run into the "Rubbermaid" area to use
my cellphone [If I worked for WM, a boss would look for me by lightbulbs
or by flashlights, camping lights or bicycles in sporting goods in the
very unlikely event I would work there before trashpicking aluminum beer
cans for scrap value!] In a really major 911 case, I would get on a
forklift and use the cellphone while driving it! OK, did I post my way
out of being able to get a job at Wal-Mart? Shop at Target or K-Mart
or hardware stores whenever and wherever you still can!!!)
Don Klipstein
2004-01-19 06:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon
Post by The Etobian
Simple to resolve. Use a cell phone to call 911. The local fire
marshal will not be pleased.
You really think wally world allows their employees to carry cell phones?
Get real. Besides which, cell phones often don't work inside a building
anyway.
If I was in a situation where I was working somewhere, punched out, and
the manager told me I couldn't leave until the door was unlocked in
several hours . . . I would find a way to go THROUGH the door (not
necessarily opening it first). In your typical warehouse club, I think a
forklift might come in very handy. (!) -Dave
That sure looks like a career move to me!

Probably upward for someone who can deliver pizza or sandwiches by
bicycle in parking-unfavorable downtown and semi-downtown areas,
especially if able to work outdoors in the winter in the USA's "Rustbelt"!
Been there, done that, still can do, so I don't have to work for Wal-Mart!
Even easier in areas where car insurance for delivery drivers using cars
is so high as to exceed cost of buying new cars as fast as their
warranties expire!
I know how to deliver pizzas, sandwiches, whatever fast food by
supermarket cart or electric scooter as fast as can be done by car in a
couple prime tough urban areas with big delivered fast food demand! And
I can keep myself and a bicycle upright and moving in the direction I want
on sloped smooth wet ice that had oil spilled on it! Done that in a USA
"Rustbelt" city that is still trying to forget its most memorable ice
storm of the many of 1994 (30 hours steadily raining at 26-27 degrees F) -
I was getting my coat crunching with a crusty layer of ice and icicles
forming on the edge of my bike helmet!
So I don't have to work for Wal-Mart! But what does this nation having
major elements hostile to its working class have to offer those not
using their bodies as insanely as I do and who did not pay (from their own
or other people's money) the tuition that colleges/universities increased
annually by about 2% per year faster than the inflation measured by the
Consumer Price Index (on an average) ever since Reagan took office?

- Don Klipstein Jr. (***@misty.com)
George Grapman
2004-01-19 00:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Conservatives often attack liberals for A Blame the victim " mentality
but look at how many posters are blaming the workers.
Guess they missed the parts where workers were threatened with
termination for opening fire doors when there was no fire, were told
that doors could not be opened and were not allowed to leave after their
shift because no one had a key.
I guess Wal-Mart workers are also to blame for working off the clock.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Don Klipstein
2004-01-19 05:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will laugh if
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is Wal-Mart the
ONLY retailer that practices this?
I had a close friend work at Target and said Target did not do that!
Post by Frank
Can anyone say that? Of course, only
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in making
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
Target is non-union and successful but does not even 2% as much as
Wal-Mart generate complaints that make unions look good!

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
Paul Poulos
2004-01-19 08:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Yo -- Mr. noonenowhere A/K/A asshole or if you prefer, Frank...

I think by now some people have gotten your number, or will soon. You are
either too young, too stupid, or too fucking callused to realize that
history is replete with examples of employers who have abused their workers
in ways that are unconscionable and, indeed, criminal. But you don't have to
go back in history to the NY Triangle fire where more then 150 "locked-in"
women workers burned to death or were killed leaping 5 floors to their death
in trying to escape the flames. Just back up a few messages on this
newsgroup and you will find the following announcement, to wit:

"January 14, 2004, 3:29 PM EST
...NEW YORK -- A contractor was sentenced to 3 1/2 to 10 1/2 years in
prison for manslaughter Wednesday in a scaffold collapse that killed
five construction workers.
The 13-floor scaffold fell in 2001 in the courtyard of a Park Avenue
building under renovation.
Phillip V. Minucci, 32, of Commack, N.Y., was head of the now-defunct
Tri State Scaffold and Equipment Supplies. He pleaded guilty, admitting
the scaffold he erected could not support enough weight and was not
inspected by a licensed engineer as required by law.
Prosecutors said Minucci had cut corners to save about $3,000..."

You wouldn't be fucking laughing, nor would you be seeking to work
somewhere else if you were one of those unfortunate 5 workers on that
scaffold asshole.

Furthermore, I would expect someone like you to imply, as you have, that
because other employers practice the same or various hybrid forms of the
"lock-in" it gives walmart license to do so also. Similarly asinine is your
suggestion that we, as critics of walmart's labor practices, are inspired to
be critical "...because of their great success in making money and telling
unions where they can stick it."

First of all numbnuts, it is not unions at all that organize workers, but
rather employers themselves. To simplify it for you, the formula goes
something like this --- Walmart + more shit then workers are prepared to eat
= workers form or join a union. And I believe that, recently, walmart
workers in Canada have told walmart that shit will no longer be on the menu
for them.

In my decades of work experience I have run into many like you. And without
fail -- they always turned out to be the rat bastards on the job who would
sell out their fellow workers in a heartbeat. Only when they themselves got
fucked personally by the boss would they understand that they were
disposable slaves like the rest of us. When you lose your cherry to a boss
you will understand what it means to be true to your class and also come to
understand that the employing class and the working class have nothing in
common. "Associate" my ass .....

For the One Big Union and the Works
Paul Poulos
Member, Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)
Post by Frank
I will laugh as I walk out the emergency door, and then I will laugh if
anything is said about it and go to work somewhere else. Is Wal-Mart the
ONLY retailer that practices this? Can anyone say that? Of course, only
Wal-Mart is discussed around here because of their great success in making
money and telling unions where they can stick it.
Post by Anon
Post by Frank
Yes, any employer who requires that their workers stay at their post if
they
Post by Frank
expect to keep their jobs should all go to jail for false arrest and
kidnapping!!! Excuse me while I laugh my ass off!!
Tell ya what. Go to work. Work your entire shift. Punch out. Now
discover the door is locked and your manager won't open it for FIVE HOURS.
Now are you laughing? This has nothing to do with an employer expecting
an
Post by Anon
employee to stay at their post on the clock, it is about an employer not
allowing an employee to leave when the employee is NOT working. -Dave
Roger
2004-01-19 07:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Yes, any employer who requires that their workers stay at their post if they
expect to keep their jobs should all go to jail for false arrest and
kidnapping!!! Excuse me while I laugh my ass off!!
false imprisonment
n. depriving someone of freedom of movement by holding a person in a
confined space or by physical restraint including being locked in a car,
driven about without opportunity to get out, being tied to a chair or locked
in a closet. It may be the follow-up to a false arrest (holding someone in
the office of a department store, for example), but more often it resembles
a kidnapping with no belief or claim of a legal right to hold the person.
Therefore, false imprisonment is often a crime and if proved is almost
always the basis of a lawsuit for damages. [http://dictionary.law.com]
Post by Frank
Post by Dave C.
Post by William Boyd
Post by Dave C.
Post by citizenjoe
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
HEY!!! Wouldn't this be false arrest? To arrest someone is to
restrict
Post by Dave C.
Post by William Boyd
Post by Dave C.
their freedom of movement. If they aren't allowed to leave the
building,
Post by William Boyd
Post by Dave C.
they are in fact ARRESTED. Couldn't the wally world bigwigs face
criminal
Post by William Boyd
Post by Dave C.
charges for practices like this? -Dave
No not false arrest, Kidnapping, Maybe.
Whatever. Couldn't the Wal-Mart CEO be locked up for a while for such
criminal behavior? -Dave
Barry Gold
2004-01-19 01:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave C.
Post by citizenjoe
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
HEY!!! Wouldn't this be false arrest? To arrest someone is to restrict
their freedom of movement. If they aren't allowed to leave the building,
they are in fact ARRESTED. Couldn't the wally world bigwigs face criminal
charges for practices like this?
Technically, false IMPRISONMENT. And probably a civil tort, not a
crime.

But they might have gotten employees to sign a contract that says if
they finish their shift during certain hours (when the store is locked
up). That would probably be legally OK. Especially if they provide a
place where employees can get a little sleep and maybe a refrigerator
and microwave so they can eat
while they wait.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
Roger
2004-01-19 07:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Gold
Post by Dave C.
Post by citizenjoe
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
HEY!!! Wouldn't this be false arrest? To arrest someone is to restrict
their freedom of movement. If they aren't allowed to leave the building,
they are in fact ARRESTED. Couldn't the wally world bigwigs face criminal
charges for practices like this?
Technically, false IMPRISONMENT. And probably a civil tort, not a
crime.
false imprisonment
n. depriving someone of freedom of movement by holding a person in a
confined space or by physical restraint including being locked in a car,
driven about without opportunity to get out, being tied to a chair or locked
in a closet. It may be the follow-up to a false arrest (holding someone in
the office of a department store, for example), but more often it resembles
a kidnapping with no belief or claim of a legal right to hold the person.
Therefore, false imprisonment is often a crime and if proved is almost
always the basis of a lawsuit for damages. [http://dictionary.law.com/]
Post by Barry Gold
But they might have gotten employees to sign a contract that says if
they finish their shift during certain hours (when the store is locked
up). That would probably be legally OK. Especially if they provide a
place where employees can get a little sleep and maybe a refrigerator
and microwave so they can eat
while they wait.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
Frank
2004-01-18 17:28:33 UTC
Permalink
The fool should have used the fire exit if he was in that much pain, he
knows he would not be fired for using it for such a reason, that is common
sense. Hr probably was not that badly hurt, and was already counting
settlement dollars in his head as he ran around supposedly "trapped".
Post by citizenjoe
New York Times
January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble
believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the
overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.
It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just
smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the
hospital.
The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft. As usual, there was no
manager with a key to let Mr. Rodriguez out. The fire exit, he said,
was hardly an option - management had drummed into the overnight
workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they
would lose their jobs.
"My ankle was crushed," Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been
struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of
merchandise. "I was yelling and running around like a hurt dog that
had been hit by a car. Another worker made some phone calls to reach a
manager, and it took an hour for someone to get there and unlock the
door."
The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a
little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in. For more than 15 years,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has locked in
overnight employees at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores. It
is a policy that many employees say has created disconcerting
situations, such as when a worker in Indiana suffered a heart attack,
when hurricanes hit in Florida and when workers' wives have gone into
labor.
"You could be bleeding to death, and they'll have you locked in," Mr.
Rodriguez said. "Being locked in in an emergency like that, that's not
right."
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime
areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers - the company calls them
associates - at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has
declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500
stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that
every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to
let workers out in emergencies.
"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that
has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked
to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are
always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one
manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."
Ms. Williams said individual store managers, rather than headquarters,
decided whether to lock workers in, depending on the crime rate in
their area.
Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's
lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R"
Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.
Even some retail industry experts questioned the policy. "It's clearly
cause for concern," said Burt Flickinger, who runs a retail consulting
concern. "Locking in workers, that's more of a 19th-century practice
than a 20th-century one."
Several Wal-Mart employees said that as recently as a few months ago
they had been locked in on some nights without a manager who had a
key. Robert Schuster said that until last October, when he left his
job at a Sam's Club in Colorado Springs, workers were locked in every
night, and on Friday and Saturday nights there was no one there with a
key. One night, he recalled, a worker had been throwing up violently,
and no one had a store key to let him out.
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire
door and there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big
lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an
emergency like the place going up on fire."
Augustine Herrera, who worked at the Colorado Springs store for nine
years, disputed the company's assertion that it locked workers in
stores in only high-crime areas, largely to protect employees.
"The store is in a perfectly safe area," Mr. Herrera said.
Several employees said Wal-Mart began making sure that there was
someone with a key seven nights a week at the Colorado Springs store
and other stores starting Jan. 1, shortly after The New York Times
began making inquiries about employees' being locked in.
The main reason that Wal-Mart and Sam's stores lock in workers,
several former store managers said, was not to protect employees but
to stop "shrinkage" - theft by employees and outsiders.
"It's to prevent shrinkage. Wal-Mart is like any other company.
They're concerned about the bottom line, and the bottom line is
affected by shrinkage in the store."
Another reason for lock-ins, he said, was to increase efficiency -
workers could not sneak outside to smoke a cigarette, get high or make
a quick trip home.
Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged that the seemingly obvious thing to have
done after breaking his ankle was to leave by the fire door, but he
and two dozen other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club workers said they had
repeatedly been warned never to do that unless there was a fire.
Leaving for any other reason, they said, could jeopardize the jobs of
the offending employee and the night supervisor.
Regarding Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Williams said, "He was clearly capable of
walking out a fire door anytime during the night."
She added: "We tell associates that common sense has to prevail. Fire
doors are for emergencies, and by all means use them if you have
emergencies. We have no way of knowing what any individual manager
said to an associate."
None of the Wal-Mart workers interviewed said they knew anyone who had
been fired for violating the fire-exit policy in an emergency, but
several said they knew workers who had received official reprimands,
the first step toward firing. Several said managers had told them of
firing workers for such an offense.
"They let us know they'd fire people for going out the fire door,
unless there was a fire." said Farris Cobb, who was a night supervisor
at several Sam's Clubs in Florida. "They instilled in us they had done
it before and they would do it again."
Mr. Cobb and several other workers interviewed about lock-ins were
plaintiffs in lawsuits accusing Wal-Mart of forcing them to work off
the clock, for example working several hours without pay after their
shifts ended. Wal-Mart says it tells managers never to let employees
work off the clock.
Janet Anderson, who was a night supervisor at a Sam's Club in Colorado
from 1996 to 2002, said that many of her employees were also airmen
stationed at a nearby Air Force base. Their commanders sometimes
called the store to order them to report to duty immediately, but she
said they often had to wait until a manager arrived around 6 a.m. She
said one airman received a reprimand from management for leaving by
the fire door to report for duty.
Ms. Anderson also told of a worker who had broken his foot one night
while using a cardboard box baler and had to wait four hours for
someone to open the door. She said the store's managers had lied to
her and the overnight crew, telling them the fire doors could not be
physically opened by the workers and that the doors would open
automatically when the fire alarm was triggered.
Only after several years as night supervisor did she learn that she
could open the fire door from inside, she said, but she was told she
faced dismissal if she opened it when there was no fire. One night,
she said, she cut her finger badly with a box cutter but dared not go
out the fire exit - waiting until morning to get 13 stitches at a
hospital.
The federal government and almost all states do not bar locking in
workers so long as they have access to an emergency exit. But several
longtime Wal-Mart workers recalled that in the late 1980's and early
1990's, the fire doors of some Wal-Marts were chained shut.
Wal-Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an
overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in
1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the
employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there
was no manager with a key.
"We certainly do not do that now," Ms. Williams said. "It's not been
that way for a long time."
Explaining the policy, she said, "Only about 10 percent of our stores
do not allow associates to come and go at will, and these are
generally in higher crime areas where the associates' safety is
considered an issue."
Mr. Lewis, the former store manager, said he had been willing to get
out of bed at any hour to drive back to his store to unlock the door
in an emergency. But he said many Sam's Club managers were not as
responsive. "Sometimes you couldn't get hold of a manager," he said.
"The tendency of managers was to sleep through the nights. They let
the answering machine pick up."
Mr. Cobb, the overnight supervisor in Florida, said he remembered once
when a stocker was deathly sick, throwing up repeatedly. He said he
called the store manager at home and told him, " `You need to come let
this person out.' He said: `Find one of the mattresses. Have him lay
down on the floor.'
"I went into certain situations like that, and I called store
managers, and they pretty much told me that they wouldn't come in to
unlock the door. So I would call another manager, and a lot of times
they would tell you that they were on their way, when they weren't."
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
Roy Ellsworth Jr., who was a cashier at a Wal-Mart in Pueblo, Colo.,
said he was normally scheduled to work until the store closed at 10
p.m., but most nights management locked the front door, at closing
time, and did not let workers leave until everyone had straightened up
the store.
"They would keep us there for however long they wanted," Mr. Ellsworth
said. "It was often for half an hour, and it could be two hours or
longer during Christmas season."
One night, shortly after closing time, Mr. Ellsworth had an asthma
attack. "My inhaler hardly helped," he said. "I couldn't breathe. I
felt I was going to pass out. I got fuzzy vision. I told the assistant
manager I really needed to go to the hospital. He pretty much got in
my face and told me not to leave or I'd get fired. I was having
trouble standing. When I finally told him I was going to call a
lawyer, he finally let me out."
One top Wal-Mart official said: "If those things happened five or six
years ago, we're a very large company with more that 3,000 stores, and
individual instances like that could happen. That's certainly not
something Wal-Mart would condone."
----------------------------------
Roger
2004-01-18 17:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
The fool should have used the fire exit if he was in that much pain, he
knows he would not be fired for using it for such a reason, that is common
sense. Hr probably was not that badly hurt, and was already counting
settlement dollars in his head as he ran around supposedly "trapped".
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire door and
there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big lecture that if we
go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency like the place
going up on fire."
Post by Frank
Post by citizenjoe
New York Times
January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble
believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the
overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.
It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just
smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the
hospital.
The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft. As usual, there was no
manager with a key to let Mr. Rodriguez out. The fire exit, he said,
was hardly an option - management had drummed into the overnight
workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they
would lose their jobs.
"My ankle was crushed," Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been
struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of
merchandise. "I was yelling and running around like a hurt dog that
had been hit by a car. Another worker made some phone calls to reach a
manager, and it took an hour for someone to get there and unlock the
door."
The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a
little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in. For more than 15 years,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has locked in
overnight employees at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores. It
is a policy that many employees say has created disconcerting
situations, such as when a worker in Indiana suffered a heart attack,
when hurricanes hit in Florida and when workers' wives have gone into
labor.
"You could be bleeding to death, and they'll have you locked in," Mr.
Rodriguez said. "Being locked in in an emergency like that, that's not
right."
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime
areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers - the company calls them
associates - at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has
declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500
stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that
every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to
let workers out in emergencies.
"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that
has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked
to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are
always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one
manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."
Ms. Williams said individual store managers, rather than headquarters,
decided whether to lock workers in, depending on the crime rate in
their area.
Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's
lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R"
Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.
Even some retail industry experts questioned the policy. "It's clearly
cause for concern," said Burt Flickinger, who runs a retail consulting
concern. "Locking in workers, that's more of a 19th-century practice
than a 20th-century one."
Several Wal-Mart employees said that as recently as a few months ago
they had been locked in on some nights without a manager who had a
key. Robert Schuster said that until last October, when he left his
job at a Sam's Club in Colorado Springs, workers were locked in every
night, and on Friday and Saturday nights there was no one there with a
key. One night, he recalled, a worker had been throwing up violently,
and no one had a store key to let him out.
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire
door and there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big
lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an
emergency like the place going up on fire."
Augustine Herrera, who worked at the Colorado Springs store for nine
years, disputed the company's assertion that it locked workers in
stores in only high-crime areas, largely to protect employees.
"The store is in a perfectly safe area," Mr. Herrera said.
Several employees said Wal-Mart began making sure that there was
someone with a key seven nights a week at the Colorado Springs store
and other stores starting Jan. 1, shortly after The New York Times
began making inquiries about employees' being locked in.
The main reason that Wal-Mart and Sam's stores lock in workers,
several former store managers said, was not to protect employees but
to stop "shrinkage" - theft by employees and outsiders.
"It's to prevent shrinkage. Wal-Mart is like any other company.
They're concerned about the bottom line, and the bottom line is
affected by shrinkage in the store."
Another reason for lock-ins, he said, was to increase efficiency -
workers could not sneak outside to smoke a cigarette, get high or make
a quick trip home.
Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged that the seemingly obvious thing to have
done after breaking his ankle was to leave by the fire door, but he
and two dozen other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club workers said they had
repeatedly been warned never to do that unless there was a fire.
Leaving for any other reason, they said, could jeopardize the jobs of
the offending employee and the night supervisor.
Regarding Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Williams said, "He was clearly capable of
walking out a fire door anytime during the night."
She added: "We tell associates that common sense has to prevail. Fire
doors are for emergencies, and by all means use them if you have
emergencies. We have no way of knowing what any individual manager
said to an associate."
None of the Wal-Mart workers interviewed said they knew anyone who had
been fired for violating the fire-exit policy in an emergency, but
several said they knew workers who had received official reprimands,
the first step toward firing. Several said managers had told them of
firing workers for such an offense.
"They let us know they'd fire people for going out the fire door,
unless there was a fire." said Farris Cobb, who was a night supervisor
at several Sam's Clubs in Florida. "They instilled in us they had done
it before and they would do it again."
Mr. Cobb and several other workers interviewed about lock-ins were
plaintiffs in lawsuits accusing Wal-Mart of forcing them to work off
the clock, for example working several hours without pay after their
shifts ended. Wal-Mart says it tells managers never to let employees
work off the clock.
Janet Anderson, who was a night supervisor at a Sam's Club in Colorado
from 1996 to 2002, said that many of her employees were also airmen
stationed at a nearby Air Force base. Their commanders sometimes
called the store to order them to report to duty immediately, but she
said they often had to wait until a manager arrived around 6 a.m. She
said one airman received a reprimand from management for leaving by
the fire door to report for duty.
Ms. Anderson also told of a worker who had broken his foot one night
while using a cardboard box baler and had to wait four hours for
someone to open the door. She said the store's managers had lied to
her and the overnight crew, telling them the fire doors could not be
physically opened by the workers and that the doors would open
automatically when the fire alarm was triggered.
Only after several years as night supervisor did she learn that she
could open the fire door from inside, she said, but she was told she
faced dismissal if she opened it when there was no fire. One night,
she said, she cut her finger badly with a box cutter but dared not go
out the fire exit - waiting until morning to get 13 stitches at a
hospital.
The federal government and almost all states do not bar locking in
workers so long as they have access to an emergency exit. But several
longtime Wal-Mart workers recalled that in the late 1980's and early
1990's, the fire doors of some Wal-Marts were chained shut.
Wal-Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an
overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in
1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the
employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there
was no manager with a key.
"We certainly do not do that now," Ms. Williams said. "It's not been
that way for a long time."
Explaining the policy, she said, "Only about 10 percent of our stores
do not allow associates to come and go at will, and these are
generally in higher crime areas where the associates' safety is
considered an issue."
Mr. Lewis, the former store manager, said he had been willing to get
out of bed at any hour to drive back to his store to unlock the door
in an emergency. But he said many Sam's Club managers were not as
responsive. "Sometimes you couldn't get hold of a manager," he said.
"The tendency of managers was to sleep through the nights. They let
the answering machine pick up."
Mr. Cobb, the overnight supervisor in Florida, said he remembered once
when a stocker was deathly sick, throwing up repeatedly. He said he
called the store manager at home and told him, " `You need to come let
this person out.' He said: `Find one of the mattresses. Have him lay
down on the floor.'
"I went into certain situations like that, and I called store
managers, and they pretty much told me that they wouldn't come in to
unlock the door. So I would call another manager, and a lot of times
they would tell you that they were on their way, when they weren't."
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
Roy Ellsworth Jr., who was a cashier at a Wal-Mart in Pueblo, Colo.,
said he was normally scheduled to work until the store closed at 10
p.m., but most nights management locked the front door, at closing
time, and did not let workers leave until everyone had straightened up
the store.
"They would keep us there for however long they wanted," Mr. Ellsworth
said. "It was often for half an hour, and it could be two hours or
longer during Christmas season."
One night, shortly after closing time, Mr. Ellsworth had an asthma
attack. "My inhaler hardly helped," he said. "I couldn't breathe. I
felt I was going to pass out. I got fuzzy vision. I told the assistant
manager I really needed to go to the hospital. He pretty much got in
my face and told me not to leave or I'd get fired. I was having
trouble standing. When I finally told him I was going to call a
lawyer, he finally let me out."
One top Wal-Mart official said: "If those things happened five or six
years ago, we're a very large company with more that 3,000 stores, and
individual instances like that could happen. That's certainly not
something Wal-Mart would condone."
----------------------------------
Carl
2004-01-18 19:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire door and
there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big lecture that if we
go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency like the place
going up on fire."
The vast majority of Wal-Mart employees are law-abiding American
citizens and are terrified of their management. Usually that's the
only job available to them where they live, and Wal-Mart knows this.
Roger
2004-01-19 07:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by Roger
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire door and
there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big lecture that if we
go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency like the place
going up on fire."
The vast majority of Wal-Mart employees are law-abiding American
citizens and are terrified of their management. Usually that's the
only job available to them where they live, and Wal-Mart knows this.
After they put all other retail in the area out of business.

There is a price to be paid for being predatory and monopolistic.

They're starting to pay it. Communities are keeping them out. Employees are
demanding fair treatment.

You can tell Wal-Mart's scared. They are running TV ads saying how great it
is to work there and how great their benefits are. Never mind that only a
small percentage of their employees can afford to pay for them, with their
crappy McDonald's level pay.
Frank
2004-01-18 21:42:02 UTC
Permalink
He supposedly had a major injury. That is an "emergency like the place going
up in fire". I don't buy any of this bunk. Not a bit. Have an ounce of
common sense, for crying out loud.
Post by Roger
Post by Frank
The fool should have used the fire exit if he was in that much pain, he
knows he would not be fired for using it for such a reason, that is common
sense. Hr probably was not that badly hurt, and was already counting
settlement dollars in his head as he ran around supposedly "trapped".
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire door and
there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big lecture that if we
go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency like the place
going up on fire."
Post by Frank
Post by citizenjoe
New York Times
January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble
believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the
overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.
It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just
smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the
hospital.
The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft. As usual, there was no
manager with a key to let Mr. Rodriguez out. The fire exit, he said,
was hardly an option - management had drummed into the overnight
workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they
would lose their jobs.
"My ankle was crushed," Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been
struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of
merchandise. "I was yelling and running around like a hurt dog that
had been hit by a car. Another worker made some phone calls to reach a
manager, and it took an hour for someone to get there and unlock the
door."
The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a
little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in. For more than 15 years,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has locked in
overnight employees at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores. It
is a policy that many employees say has created disconcerting
situations, such as when a worker in Indiana suffered a heart attack,
when hurricanes hit in Florida and when workers' wives have gone into
labor.
"You could be bleeding to death, and they'll have you locked in," Mr.
Rodriguez said. "Being locked in in an emergency like that, that's not
right."
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime
areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers - the company calls them
associates - at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has
declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500
stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that
every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to
let workers out in emergencies.
"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that
has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked
to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are
always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one
manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."
Ms. Williams said individual store managers, rather than headquarters,
decided whether to lock workers in, depending on the crime rate in
their area.
Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's
lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R"
Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.
Even some retail industry experts questioned the policy. "It's clearly
cause for concern," said Burt Flickinger, who runs a retail consulting
concern. "Locking in workers, that's more of a 19th-century practice
than a 20th-century one."
Several Wal-Mart employees said that as recently as a few months ago
they had been locked in on some nights without a manager who had a
key. Robert Schuster said that until last October, when he left his
job at a Sam's Club in Colorado Springs, workers were locked in every
night, and on Friday and Saturday nights there was no one there with a
key. One night, he recalled, a worker had been throwing up violently,
and no one had a store key to let him out.
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire
door and there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big
lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an
emergency like the place going up on fire."
Augustine Herrera, who worked at the Colorado Springs store for nine
years, disputed the company's assertion that it locked workers in
stores in only high-crime areas, largely to protect employees.
"The store is in a perfectly safe area," Mr. Herrera said.
Several employees said Wal-Mart began making sure that there was
someone with a key seven nights a week at the Colorado Springs store
and other stores starting Jan. 1, shortly after The New York Times
began making inquiries about employees' being locked in.
The main reason that Wal-Mart and Sam's stores lock in workers,
several former store managers said, was not to protect employees but
to stop "shrinkage" - theft by employees and outsiders.
"It's to prevent shrinkage. Wal-Mart is like any other company.
They're concerned about the bottom line, and the bottom line is
affected by shrinkage in the store."
Another reason for lock-ins, he said, was to increase efficiency -
workers could not sneak outside to smoke a cigarette, get high or make
a quick trip home.
Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged that the seemingly obvious thing to have
done after breaking his ankle was to leave by the fire door, but he
and two dozen other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club workers said they had
repeatedly been warned never to do that unless there was a fire.
Leaving for any other reason, they said, could jeopardize the jobs of
the offending employee and the night supervisor.
Regarding Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Williams said, "He was clearly capable of
walking out a fire door anytime during the night."
She added: "We tell associates that common sense has to prevail. Fire
doors are for emergencies, and by all means use them if you have
emergencies. We have no way of knowing what any individual manager
said to an associate."
None of the Wal-Mart workers interviewed said they knew anyone who had
been fired for violating the fire-exit policy in an emergency, but
several said they knew workers who had received official reprimands,
the first step toward firing. Several said managers had told them of
firing workers for such an offense.
"They let us know they'd fire people for going out the fire door,
unless there was a fire." said Farris Cobb, who was a night supervisor
at several Sam's Clubs in Florida. "They instilled in us they had done
it before and they would do it again."
Mr. Cobb and several other workers interviewed about lock-ins were
plaintiffs in lawsuits accusing Wal-Mart of forcing them to work off
the clock, for example working several hours without pay after their
shifts ended. Wal-Mart says it tells managers never to let employees
work off the clock.
Janet Anderson, who was a night supervisor at a Sam's Club in Colorado
from 1996 to 2002, said that many of her employees were also airmen
stationed at a nearby Air Force base. Their commanders sometimes
called the store to order them to report to duty immediately, but she
said they often had to wait until a manager arrived around 6 a.m. She
said one airman received a reprimand from management for leaving by
the fire door to report for duty.
Ms. Anderson also told of a worker who had broken his foot one night
while using a cardboard box baler and had to wait four hours for
someone to open the door. She said the store's managers had lied to
her and the overnight crew, telling them the fire doors could not be
physically opened by the workers and that the doors would open
automatically when the fire alarm was triggered.
Only after several years as night supervisor did she learn that she
could open the fire door from inside, she said, but she was told she
faced dismissal if she opened it when there was no fire. One night,
she said, she cut her finger badly with a box cutter but dared not go
out the fire exit - waiting until morning to get 13 stitches at a
hospital.
The federal government and almost all states do not bar locking in
workers so long as they have access to an emergency exit. But several
longtime Wal-Mart workers recalled that in the late 1980's and early
1990's, the fire doors of some Wal-Marts were chained shut.
Wal-Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an
overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in
1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the
employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there
was no manager with a key.
"We certainly do not do that now," Ms. Williams said. "It's not been
that way for a long time."
Explaining the policy, she said, "Only about 10 percent of our stores
do not allow associates to come and go at will, and these are
generally in higher crime areas where the associates' safety is
considered an issue."
Mr. Lewis, the former store manager, said he had been willing to get
out of bed at any hour to drive back to his store to unlock the door
in an emergency. But he said many Sam's Club managers were not as
responsive. "Sometimes you couldn't get hold of a manager," he said.
"The tendency of managers was to sleep through the nights. They let
the answering machine pick up."
Mr. Cobb, the overnight supervisor in Florida, said he remembered once
when a stocker was deathly sick, throwing up repeatedly. He said he
called the store manager at home and told him, " `You need to come let
this person out.' He said: `Find one of the mattresses. Have him lay
down on the floor.'
"I went into certain situations like that, and I called store
managers, and they pretty much told me that they wouldn't come in to
unlock the door. So I would call another manager, and a lot of times
they would tell you that they were on their way, when they weren't."
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
Roy Ellsworth Jr., who was a cashier at a Wal-Mart in Pueblo, Colo.,
said he was normally scheduled to work until the store closed at 10
p.m., but most nights management locked the front door, at closing
time, and did not let workers leave until everyone had straightened up
the store.
"They would keep us there for however long they wanted," Mr. Ellsworth
said. "It was often for half an hour, and it could be two hours or
longer during Christmas season."
One night, shortly after closing time, Mr. Ellsworth had an asthma
attack. "My inhaler hardly helped," he said. "I couldn't breathe. I
felt I was going to pass out. I got fuzzy vision. I told the assistant
manager I really needed to go to the hospital. He pretty much got in
my face and told me not to leave or I'd get fired. I was having
trouble standing. When I finally told him I was going to call a
lawyer, he finally let me out."
One top Wal-Mart official said: "If those things happened five or six
years ago, we're a very large company with more that 3,000 stores, and
individual instances like that could happen. That's certainly not
something Wal-Mart would condone."
----------------------------------
Roger
2004-01-19 07:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
He supposedly had a major injury. That is an "emergency like the place going
up in fire". I don't buy any of this bunk. Not a bit. Have an ounce of
common sense, for crying out loud.
If the only job available is a crappy paying Wal-Mart job, would you risk it
if you though you could get away with not getting hurt too badly?

Put yourself in their positions. If you can.
Post by Frank
Post by Roger
Post by Frank
The fool should have used the fire exit if he was in that much pain, he
knows he would not be fired for using it for such a reason, that is
common
Post by Roger
Post by Frank
sense. Hr probably was not that badly hurt, and was already counting
settlement dollars in his head as he ran around supposedly "trapped".
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire door
and
Post by Roger
there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big lecture that if
we
Post by Roger
go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency like the place
going up on fire."
Post by Frank
Post by citizenjoe
New York Times
January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble
believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the
overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.
It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just
smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the
hospital.
The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft. As usual, there was no
manager with a key to let Mr. Rodriguez out. The fire exit, he said,
was hardly an option - management had drummed into the overnight
workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they
would lose their jobs.
"My ankle was crushed," Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been
struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of
merchandise. "I was yelling and running around like a hurt dog that
had been hit by a car. Another worker made some phone calls to reach a
manager, and it took an hour for someone to get there and unlock the
door."
The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a
little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in. For more than 15 years,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has locked in
overnight employees at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores. It
is a policy that many employees say has created disconcerting
situations, such as when a worker in Indiana suffered a heart attack,
when hurricanes hit in Florida and when workers' wives have gone into
labor.
"You could be bleeding to death, and they'll have you locked in," Mr.
Rodriguez said. "Being locked in in an emergency like that, that's not
right."
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime
areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers - the company calls them
associates - at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has
declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500
stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that
every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to
let workers out in emergencies.
"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that
has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked
to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are
always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one
manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."
Ms. Williams said individual store managers, rather than
headquarters,
Post by Frank
Post by Roger
Post by Frank
Post by citizenjoe
decided whether to lock workers in, depending on the crime rate in
their area.
Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's
lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R"
Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.
Even some retail industry experts questioned the policy. "It's clearly
cause for concern," said Burt Flickinger, who runs a retail consulting
concern. "Locking in workers, that's more of a 19th-century practice
than a 20th-century one."
Several Wal-Mart employees said that as recently as a few months ago
they had been locked in on some nights without a manager who had a
key. Robert Schuster said that until last October, when he left his
job at a Sam's Club in Colorado Springs, workers were locked in every
night, and on Friday and Saturday nights there was no one there with a
key. One night, he recalled, a worker had been throwing up violently,
and no one had a store key to let him out.
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire
door and there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big
lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an
emergency like the place going up on fire."
Augustine Herrera, who worked at the Colorado Springs store for nine
years, disputed the company's assertion that it locked workers in
stores in only high-crime areas, largely to protect employees.
"The store is in a perfectly safe area," Mr. Herrera said.
Several employees said Wal-Mart began making sure that there was
someone with a key seven nights a week at the Colorado Springs store
and other stores starting Jan. 1, shortly after The New York Times
began making inquiries about employees' being locked in.
The main reason that Wal-Mart and Sam's stores lock in workers,
several former store managers said, was not to protect employees but
to stop "shrinkage" - theft by employees and outsiders.
"It's to prevent shrinkage. Wal-Mart is like any other company.
They're concerned about the bottom line, and the bottom line is
affected by shrinkage in the store."
Another reason for lock-ins, he said, was to increase efficiency -
workers could not sneak outside to smoke a cigarette, get high or make
a quick trip home.
Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged that the seemingly obvious thing to have
done after breaking his ankle was to leave by the fire door, but he
and two dozen other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club workers said they had
repeatedly been warned never to do that unless there was a fire.
Leaving for any other reason, they said, could jeopardize the jobs of
the offending employee and the night supervisor.
Regarding Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Williams said, "He was clearly capable of
walking out a fire door anytime during the night."
She added: "We tell associates that common sense has to prevail. Fire
doors are for emergencies, and by all means use them if you have
emergencies. We have no way of knowing what any individual manager
said to an associate."
None of the Wal-Mart workers interviewed said they knew anyone who had
been fired for violating the fire-exit policy in an emergency, but
several said they knew workers who had received official reprimands,
the first step toward firing. Several said managers had told them of
firing workers for such an offense.
"They let us know they'd fire people for going out the fire door,
unless there was a fire." said Farris Cobb, who was a night supervisor
at several Sam's Clubs in Florida. "They instilled in us they had done
it before and they would do it again."
Mr. Cobb and several other workers interviewed about lock-ins were
plaintiffs in lawsuits accusing Wal-Mart of forcing them to work off
the clock, for example working several hours without pay after their
shifts ended. Wal-Mart says it tells managers never to let employees
work off the clock.
Janet Anderson, who was a night supervisor at a Sam's Club in Colorado
from 1996 to 2002, said that many of her employees were also airmen
stationed at a nearby Air Force base. Their commanders sometimes
called the store to order them to report to duty immediately, but she
said they often had to wait until a manager arrived around 6 a.m. She
said one airman received a reprimand from management for leaving by
the fire door to report for duty.
Ms. Anderson also told of a worker who had broken his foot one night
while using a cardboard box baler and had to wait four hours for
someone to open the door. She said the store's managers had lied to
her and the overnight crew, telling them the fire doors could not be
physically opened by the workers and that the doors would open
automatically when the fire alarm was triggered.
Only after several years as night supervisor did she learn that she
could open the fire door from inside, she said, but she was told she
faced dismissal if she opened it when there was no fire. One night,
she said, she cut her finger badly with a box cutter but dared not go
out the fire exit - waiting until morning to get 13 stitches at a
hospital.
The federal government and almost all states do not bar locking in
workers so long as they have access to an emergency exit. But several
longtime Wal-Mart workers recalled that in the late 1980's and early
1990's, the fire doors of some Wal-Marts were chained shut.
Wal-Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an
overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in
1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the
employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there
was no manager with a key.
"We certainly do not do that now," Ms. Williams said. "It's not been
that way for a long time."
Explaining the policy, she said, "Only about 10 percent of our stores
do not allow associates to come and go at will, and these are
generally in higher crime areas where the associates' safety is
considered an issue."
Mr. Lewis, the former store manager, said he had been willing to get
out of bed at any hour to drive back to his store to unlock the door
in an emergency. But he said many Sam's Club managers were not as
responsive. "Sometimes you couldn't get hold of a manager," he said.
"The tendency of managers was to sleep through the nights. They let
the answering machine pick up."
Mr. Cobb, the overnight supervisor in Florida, said he remembered once
when a stocker was deathly sick, throwing up repeatedly. He said he
called the store manager at home and told him, " `You need to come let
this person out.' He said: `Find one of the mattresses. Have him lay
down on the floor.'
"I went into certain situations like that, and I called store
managers, and they pretty much told me that they wouldn't come in to
unlock the door. So I would call another manager, and a lot of times
they would tell you that they were on their way, when they weren't."
Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees
from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played
out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on
many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the
40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then
have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television,
until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.
Roy Ellsworth Jr., who was a cashier at a Wal-Mart in Pueblo, Colo.,
said he was normally scheduled to work until the store closed at 10
p.m., but most nights management locked the front door, at closing
time, and did not let workers leave until everyone had straightened up
the store.
"They would keep us there for however long they wanted," Mr. Ellsworth
said. "It was often for half an hour, and it could be two hours or
longer during Christmas season."
One night, shortly after closing time, Mr. Ellsworth had an asthma
attack. "My inhaler hardly helped," he said. "I couldn't breathe. I
felt I was going to pass out. I got fuzzy vision. I told the assistant
manager I really needed to go to the hospital. He pretty much got in
my face and told me not to leave or I'd get fired. I was having
trouble standing. When I finally told him I was going to call a
lawyer, he finally let me out."
One top Wal-Mart official said: "If those things happened five or six
years ago, we're a very large company with more that 3,000 stores, and
individual instances like that could happen. That's certainly not
something Wal-Mart would condone."
----------------------------------
a***@invalid.net
2004-01-18 23:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire door and
there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big lecture that if we
go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency like the place
going up on fire."
Surprised not to hear of more fires in lock ups at Walmart and Sam's
(;->
Don Klipstein
2004-01-19 06:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by citizenjoe
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire
door and there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big
lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an
emergency like the place going up on fire."
Surprised not to hear of more fires in lock ups at Walmart and Sam's
Arson is an outright felony in most US states unless I am wrong. If
someone has to bust out of Wal-Mart when the doors are locked, I surely
think Wal-Mart will press charges wherever possible, and I think an arson
fire is a major additional liability to an employee "burglarizing" his way
out!

Should I have to bust my way out driving a forklift in an unauthorized
manner (first don a bike helmet from sporting goods if time permits
consideration for larger chunks of whatever falling on your head), I do
not have on my mind as a priority making sure that there is some major
fire!

(Partial legal advice - where hostile reactions are forseeable, do not
drive a forklift on streets AKA "public highways" where only street-legal
vehicles can legally be operated!)

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
Roger
2004-01-19 07:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Roger
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire door and
there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big lecture that if we
go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency like the place
going up on fire."
Surprised not to hear of more fires in lock ups at Walmart and Sam's
(;->
I'm sure that they are eager to have them publicized.
Paul Poulos
2004-01-18 22:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Amazing you asshole -- you did it again...

You presumed to know-- how badly a worker was hurt -- how much pain he was
in -- that walmart would not have fired him -- and his sole concern was
securing a "settlement" from walmart. I'll lay odds that it is more in
keeping with something you yourself would have done, and further, that you
are probably the biggest suck-ass on your own job.
Post by Frank
The fool should have used the fire exit if he was in that much pain, he
knows he would not be fired for using it for such a reason, that is common
sense. Hr probably was not that badly hurt, and was already counting
settlement dollars in his head as he ran around supposedly "trapped".
Post by citizenjoe
New York Times
January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble
believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the
overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.
It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just
smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the
hospital.
The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft. As usual, there was no
manager with a key to let Mr. Rodriguez out. The fire exit, he said,
was hardly an option - management had drummed into the overnight
workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they
would lose their jobs.
"My ankle was crushed," Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been
struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of
merchandise. "I was yelling and running around like a hurt dog that
had been hit by a car. Another worker made some phone calls to reach a
manager, and it took an hour for someone to get there and unlock the
door."
[SNIP]
Frank
2004-01-19 00:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Paul, if you want to start name calling, that's perfectly okay, it just
confirms to me what kind of person I'm dealing with, and not to put to much
credence to any of your nonsense. Mr. Rodriguez would not be the first to
abuse the system, and not the last. Wal-Mart has deep pockets, and mister
"I'm-so-scared-of-Wal-Mart-I-can't-walk-out-the-fucking-emergency-door" had
dollar signs in his eyes.
Post by Paul Poulos
Amazing you asshole -- you did it again...
You presumed to know-- how badly a worker was hurt -- how much pain he was
in -- that walmart would not have fired him -- and his sole concern was
securing a "settlement" from walmart. I'll lay odds that it is more in
keeping with something you yourself would have done, and further, that you
are probably the biggest suck-ass on your own job.
Post by Frank
The fool should have used the fire exit if he was in that much pain, he
knows he would not be fired for using it for such a reason, that is common
sense. Hr probably was not that badly hurt, and was already counting
settlement dollars in his head as he ran around supposedly "trapped".
Post by citizenjoe
New York Times
January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble
believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the
overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.
It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just
smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the
hospital.
The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight
workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some
managers say, to prevent employee theft. As usual, there was no
manager with a key to let Mr. Rodriguez out. The fire exit, he said,
was hardly an option - management had drummed into the overnight
workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they
would lose their jobs.
"My ankle was crushed," Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been
struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of
merchandise. "I was yelling and running around like a hurt dog that
had been hit by a car. Another worker made some phone calls to reach a
manager, and it took an hour for someone to get there and unlock the
door."
[SNIP]
Don Klipstein
2004-01-19 06:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Paul, if you want to start name calling, that's perfectly okay, it just
confirms to me what kind of person I'm dealing with, and not to put to
much credence to any of your nonsense. Mr. Rodriguez would not be the
first to abuse the system, and not the last. Wal-Mart has deep pockets,
and mister
"I'm-so-scared-of-Wal-Mart-I-can't-walk-out-the-fucking-emergency-door"
had dollar signs in his eyes.
I've read dozens of threads on Wal-Mart ever since days when 3.1 was the
latest version of Windows! Enough people "blame the victims" of Wal-Mart
even more than deny that the aleged abuses occur that I (somewhat
anti-lawyer, maybe a minority in my family) would favor Dewey, Cheatem and
Howe over Wal-Mart! (Punitive damages to go to the US Department of Labor
rather than the palintiff.)

Meanwhile, I suspect many Wal-Mart employees working where the
unemployment rate of those fired by Wal-Mart is maybe 30% would be scared
stiff to set off an alarm!

- Don Klipstein (Jr) (***@misty.com)
abdul rahim
2004-01-19 04:06:30 UTC
Permalink
if you don't like the exploitation at walmart, work somewhere else.


another thing: why do people seem to feel entitled to stay where they
currently live and to have a good-paying job there? there are no
guarantees in life. you have to pick up and move, to chase the good
jobs.

and unions for retail workers? calif. can forget this fantasy. once
those 40 walmart supercenters open, the overpaid workers at
albertson's, ralph's, safeway, will have to realize how much their
unskilled work is worth in the free market.
Anon
2004-01-19 04:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by abdul rahim
if you don't like the exploitation at walmart, work somewhere else.
another thing: why do people seem to feel entitled to stay where they
currently live and to have a good-paying job there? there are no
guarantees in life. you have to pick up and move, to chase the good
jobs.
If wally world was the best (or only) employer in the area, you'd probably
be inclined to move anyway, for reasons that have nothing to do with local
job prospects. -Dave
Roger
2004-01-19 07:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by abdul rahim
if you don't like the exploitation at walmart, work somewhere else.
another thing: why do people seem to feel entitled to stay where they
currently live and to have a good-paying job there? there are no
guarantees in life. you have to pick up and move, to chase the good
jobs.
and unions for retail workers? calif. can forget this fantasy. once
those 40 walmart supercenters open, the overpaid workers at
albertson's, ralph's, safeway, will have to realize how much their
unskilled work is worth in the free market.
Yeah, if you don't like your crappy low paying job, go get a better paying
one with benefits.

You really think they turned down that option? Or do you think that maybe
it's not an option?
yamwhatiyam
2004-01-19 14:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by abdul rahim
if you don't like the exploitation at walmart, work somewhere else.
You misspelled "[...] change the conditions that encourage the
exploitation."

"Love it or leave it" is a policy of cowards, scoundrels and losers who
like others to stay stuck in the mud.
Frank
2004-01-19 21:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by yamwhatiyam
Post by abdul rahim
if you don't like the exploitation at walmart, work somewhere else.
You misspelled "[...] change the conditions that encourage the
exploitation."
"Love it or leave it" is a policy of cowards, scoundrels and losers who
like others to stay stuck in the mud.
Interesting, "Love it or Leave it" is the motto espoused around here to
dissatisfied union members. So then you are all for NRTW I assume?
yamwhatiyam
2004-01-19 22:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
So then you are all for NRTW I assume?
English, please.
Frank
2004-01-19 23:26:12 UTC
Permalink
National Right To Work. What I am saying is, do you have a problem with
workers who dislike unionism and fight against it? Or would you rather they
abandon their jobs and work elsewhere? I ask, because this is a hypocrisy
that runs rampant on this ng and in pro-union surroundings everywhere. I've
said this before, suggest that a person who dislikes his workplace to leave
and find another job, and we get a response like yours, crying foul at the
"love it or leave it" attitude. Turn it around, and say that you dislike the
fact that your workplace is unionized, and the same folks will tell you, "If
you don't like unions, leave and get a non-union job". Would you not agree
that this is hypocrisy?
Post by yamwhatiyam
Post by Frank
So then you are all for NRTW I assume?
English, please.
yamwhatiyam
2004-01-20 00:10:56 UTC
Permalink
<removed news:soc.retirement>
Post by Frank
National Right To Work.
Doesn't that come automatically with a nation that decries unionism? How
far has union membership declined since its heyday in this country?
Doesn't that equate with a national right to work?

Is there a fear that that decline might reverse? Why would that happen?
Frank
2004-01-20 00:33:35 UTC
Permalink
You avoided my point entirely. You fit right in here.
Post by yamwhatiyam
<removed news:soc.retirement>
Post by Frank
National Right To Work.
Doesn't that come automatically with a nation that decries unionism? How
far has union membership declined since its heyday in this country?
Doesn't that equate with a national right to work?
Is there a fear that that decline might reverse? Why would that happen?
yamwhatiyam
2004-01-20 01:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
You avoided my point entirely.
I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't avoid anything. I
asked questions. I'm reading this in misc.consumers. Although I've
lived in Arizona with its right-to-work laws, I've never heard of any
National Right To Work law before. I have no idea how it's defined, nor
who is backing it. Do you expect me to automatically fall in line with
you on some ephemeral notion of labor law? If so, forget it. Sorry, but
if such a law is being pushed by vindictive, malevolent-sounding people
like you, I'm probably opposed to it.

From your posts here, though, I suspect you are suffering from some
pretty severe paranoia (not that I doubt that you have adversaries).
Post by Frank
You fit right in here.
Whatever that means--although I assume it's an attempt to insult. Fit
in *where*, exactly? Usenet? Planet Earth?
Frank
2004-01-20 01:21:06 UTC
Permalink
I'll try one one time, just one more time. You decry the attitude of "love
it or leave it". Does this also apply to a worker stuck in a union he wishes
no part of? Do you support such a gentlemans position that he should fight
to have the union booted out by any legal means necessary? Or would you
rather just see him quit and go away?
Post by yamwhatiyam
Post by Frank
You avoided my point entirely.
I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't avoid anything. I
asked questions. I'm reading this in misc.consumers. Although I've
lived in Arizona with its right-to-work laws, I've never heard of any
National Right To Work law before. I have no idea how it's defined, nor
who is backing it. Do you expect me to automatically fall in line with
you on some ephemeral notion of labor law? If so, forget it. Sorry, but
if such a law is being pushed by vindictive, malevolent-sounding people
like you, I'm probably opposed to it.
From your posts here, though, I suspect you are suffering from some
pretty severe paranoia (not that I doubt that you have adversaries).
Post by Frank
You fit right in here.
Whatever that means--although I assume it's an attempt to insult. Fit
in *where*, exactly? Usenet? Planet Earth?
b***@cruller.invalid
2004-01-20 07:53:21 UTC
Permalink
You decry the attitude of "love it or leave it". Does this also apply
to a worker stuck in a union he wishes no part of?
I decry cowards turning tail and running away under that loser's banner.
Doesn't matter if it's a property owner driven off by rude neighbors, a
soldier in combat, a cog in an ineffective corporate structure or a
member of a corrupt union. If you don't like the way something is, work
to CHANGE IT. Don't run away. Fix it.

Love it or leave it and its many variations is nothing more than a
justification for easy retreat. When I see it promoted in any context, I
know instantly the kind of person I'm dealing with.
Frank
2004-01-20 08:01:08 UTC
Permalink
A refreshing answer, I liked it.
Post by b***@cruller.invalid
You decry the attitude of "love it or leave it". Does this also apply
to a worker stuck in a union he wishes no part of?
I decry cowards turning tail and running away under that loser's banner.
Doesn't matter if it's a property owner driven off by rude neighbors, a
soldier in combat, a cog in an ineffective corporate structure or a
member of a corrupt union. If you don't like the way something is, work
to CHANGE IT. Don't run away. Fix it.
Love it or leave it and its many variations is nothing more than a
justification for easy retreat. When I see it promoted in any context, I
know instantly the kind of person I'm dealing with.
b***@cruller.invalid
2004-01-20 00:21:52 UTC
Permalink
I've said this before, suggest that a person who dislikes his
workplace to leave and find another job, and we get a response like
yours, crying foul at the "love it or leave it" attitude. Turn it
around, and say that you dislike the fact that your workplace is
unionized, and the same folks will tell you, "If you don't like
unions, leave and get a non-union job". Would you not agree that this
is hypocrisy?
I have no doubt that's true. People in general abhor change. Change is
what makes things hard; keeps people from following the path of least
resistance. Yet change is the only constant. If a union is corrupt (as
much of corporate America seems to be today unfortunately), then it most
definitely should be changed.

I tend not to employ the "hypocrite" label anymore. That's for people
who are still young (or self-deluded) enough to think it will never
apply to them.
abdul rahim
2004-01-20 05:22:21 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: Yes

you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Post by Frank
National Right To Work. What I am saying is, do you have a problem with
workers who dislike unionism and fight against it? Or would you rather they
abandon their jobs and work elsewhere? I ask, because this is a hypocrisy
that runs rampant on this ng and in pro-union surroundings everywhere
George Grapman
2004-01-20 06:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
How many of the high tech jobs being outsourced were union?


--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Marinus van der Lubbe
2004-01-20 07:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Oh, like having a low paying job guarantees it is not going to be
shipped off to China. Just look at Mexico. We sent our factories there,
but they were just not cheap enough.

I don't know why anyone is against fair compensation or bargaining as a
group for wages. What's the alternative? Awaiting on the generosity of
the corporation's president?
a***@invalid.net
2004-01-20 15:52:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:18:36 -0800, Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Oh, like having a low paying job guarantees it is not going to be
shipped off to China. Just look at Mexico. We sent our factories there,
but they were just not cheap enough.
I don't know why anyone is against fair compensation or bargaining as a
group for wages. What's the alternative? Awaiting on the generosity of
the corporation's president?
How many of the tech support and CSR positions that are now located in
India, the Philippines and Caribbean were filled by union workers?
How many of the Earthlink and Echostar support workers who lost their
jobs to off shore operations were union members??????
Frank
2004-01-20 18:39:36 UTC
Permalink
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to drastically
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the hell
out?
Post by a***@invalid.net
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:18:36 -0800, Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Oh, like having a low paying job guarantees it is not going to be
shipped off to China. Just look at Mexico. We sent our factories there,
but they were just not cheap enough.
I don't know why anyone is against fair compensation or bargaining as a
group for wages. What's the alternative? Awaiting on the generosity of
the corporation's president?
How many of the tech support and CSR positions that are now located in
India, the Philippines and Caribbean were filled by union workers?
How many of the Earthlink and Echostar support workers who lost their
jobs to off shore operations were union members??????
a***@invalid.net
2004-01-20 21:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to drastically
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the hell
out?
what is your point? they are doing it now. IBM annou9nced they were
doing it today!
Frank
2004-01-20 22:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Exactly, and unions have a hand in this.
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to drastically
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the hell
out?
what is your point? they are doing it now. IBM annou9nced they were
doing it today!
George Grapman
2004-01-20 22:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Exactly, and unions have a hand in this.
What union do the IBM workers belong to?
Post by Frank
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to
drastically
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the
hell
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
out?
what is your point? they are doing it now. IBM annou9nced they were
doing it today!
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Frank
2004-01-20 22:57:56 UTC
Permalink
I do not know, nor do I care, however they have fostered a society that pays
it workers way off the scale compared to the rest of the world, not to
mention over regulation and over litigation, thus the fleeing to other
lands. Like I said, unions have a hand in this.
Post by George Grapman
Post by Frank
Exactly, and unions have a hand in this.
What union do the IBM workers belong to?
Post by Frank
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to
drastically
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the
hell
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
out?
what is your point? they are doing it now. IBM annou9nced they were
doing it today!
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
George Grapman
2004-01-21 01:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
I do not know, nor do I care, however they have fostered a society that pays
it workers way off the scale compared to the rest of the world, not to
mention over regulation and over litigation, thus the fleeing to other
lands. Like I said, unions have a hand in this.
Does that include your salary?
Post by Frank
Post by George Grapman
Post by Frank
Exactly, and unions have a hand in this.
What union do the IBM workers belong to?
Post by Frank
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union?
How
Post by George Grapman
Post by Frank
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the
existence of
Post by George Grapman
Post by Frank
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to
drastically
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant
and
Post by George Grapman
Post by Frank
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting
the
Post by George Grapman
Post by Frank
hell
Post by a***@invalid.net
Post by Frank
out?
what is your point? they are doing it now. IBM annou9nced they were
doing it today!
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Hawth Hill
2004-01-20 22:43:38 UTC
Permalink
in article IBePb.20693$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Frank at
***@nowhere.com wrote on 01/20/2004 6:39 PM:

Perhaps I misread your intent. If so, I apologize. But, if I am correct in
inferring that you mean to blame the loss of jobs in the U.S. to the
influence of higher union wages, then I don't think that conclusion will
withstand analysis. So far as I know jobs in Silicon Valley have long been
nearly all non-union. (While I don't claim to know it all, I am willing to
set out the basis for my belief that know "quite a bit"; until recently I
lived on the Peninsula, where Silicon Valley is located, for the past
quarter century, specializing in labor relations the entire time.) [I
leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether the
absence of unions among Silicon Valley's workers is a good thing or a bad
thing; I purposely don't state my position here.]

Instead, I will simply note that the fact that workers have a long
established _right_ under the law to organize and engage in collective
bargaining. See NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, also cited NLRA or the Act;
29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, where at, Title 29, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, United
It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes
of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to
mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by
encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by
protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing,
for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or
other mutual aid or protection.
In other words, having a union or not having a union is no longer a novel
question, or one that should prove particularly divisive. That's not MY
idea. That's the "declared policy of the United States", . . . ENCOURAGING
the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. That's the law, like
it or not. And, under that law, literally millions and millions of
potential labor disputes have been resolved with little cost or conflict,
and even less public notice.

Of note, the period during which employees' have enjoyed the statutory right
to organize and engage in collective bargaining happens to rather neatly
correspond to the period of time during which the U.S. became economically
dominant over the world, as well as the period during which American workers
practically invented the 'middle class,' and all its shared prosperity. So,
to many, the assertions that unions cause employers to fail, or be less
competitive, seems obvious nonsense, flying in the face of a long and rich
history that shows exactly the opposite. (Oh, I know, I know, many here
will jump to respond that they know of instances where unions have insisted
upon inefficiencies, or have led to unworthy employees keeping jobs that
they didn't deserve. Well, I know of such instances as well. Everyone in
the field does. But, we also know that the law contains provisions to
safeguard against abuses such as these. Let's not waste one another's time
and efforts by indulging in ad hominem example-citing, O.K.?) It remains an
undeniable fact that the greatest periods of economic growth and prosperity
that America, or the world, have ever witnessed coincided with the time when
the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining was, for the first
time, protected by U.S. law. So, be forewarned, that I regard those who
argue that having a union is somehow inconsistent with prosperity and / or
competitiveness as having a heavy load to carry in proving their point.

But, I happen to unavoidably have lots of time to kill this evening, as I'm
waiting for a dear one to come out of surgery. To distract while I wait,
I'm gonna wade into this particular discussion. For those who are averse to
lengthy rants, stop now, and go on to the next post. Otherwise, read on
only so long as it's interesting.

Here goes, my 2,000 cents worth.

The reason why such jobs as those in the high tech fields of Silicon Valley
are not unionized has long been thought to be obvious. That is, it's in
line with the old truism in labor relations, which goes like, "Union
organizers know better than to waste their time, money, and efforts, in
attempting to organize workers who are not unhappy." Such campaigns are not
only wasteful, but also introduce discord into lots of lives that lingers
long after the campaign is over and done.

True enough, there are malcontents in every workforce, (Oftentime with very
good reason. Not infrequently, however, with no decent reason at all, other
than sloth or emotional illness.) But, to go on, if the great majority of
the workforce is happy, the malcontents and the organizers simply can't gain
any traction. And efforts to organize will virtually always fail. History
shows that this is true, nearly always. Lawyers representing both sides of
the management / labor table will say this same thing, over and over and
over. (Not all, to be sure; certainly not the ones who depend upon
fomenting confrontations in order to justify their fees.) But, the vast
majority of management lawyers will confess to one, in private, that most
unionization campaigns are brought on by lazy or incompetent management,
especially by lower level managers who are allowed to get away with running
little power games that ultimately anger employees into looking around for a
way to stop it.

For decades and decades this truism has proven correct, time and time and
time again. Lincoln Electric and Hershey Chocolate are prime examples of
utterly "union-proof" work forces. Neither company has ever been found
guilty of an unfair labor practice. Or had to sit down and bargain with a
union. They were made "union-proof" by enlightened management. For decades
and decades. Throughout numerous attempts by skillful union organizers.
These companies invariably won the elections in which their employees were
the only voters.

Many other employers have learned to compete and excel in their fields, even
with a unionized workforce, often with the former labor - management
antagonists and representatives acquiring a true sophistication over the
years. In instance after instance, many employers have come to actually
prefer to operate a unionized business, generally on the basis that it
enables the employer to count on a stable workforce, at predictable costs,
and with a time honored method in place to deal with the inevitable
conflicts that arise in every work place.

On the other end of the scale, there have been many, many renowned, bitter,
and unbelievably costly, fights to keep unions out by means of unfair labor
practices, commonly called 'union busting'. Some employers have even gone
broke and/or out of business in such confrontations. (I purposely do not
name any such employers here, as their specific identity is not relevant
here.) These days, not so many employers resort to such practices, having
learned that it's less costly, and more effective in the long run, to use
lawful tactics to resist organizational efforts, or simply to keep workers
happy. There are a number of highly successful law firms representing
employers whose clients are virtually never found to have committed either
unfair labor practices, or other conduct that unfairly affects the results
of an election by workers.

Silicon Valley's entrepeneurs have, by and large, seen it as being in their
own enlightened self interest to keep a tight grip on as much of their
autonomy as possible, thereby enabling themselves to move quickly, without
having to consult or engage in collective bargaining, to meet rapidly
changing circumstances. The way they've done that is to set up systems that
treat their employees royally in many, many instances, and to pay them a
very high wage, topped off by options that can truly be princely. Ergo, no
unhappy workers, and no unions. But, all the while, providing nice profits
to the employer. (For example, our son, a Silicon Valley independent
consultant, has his daily luncheon meal prepared, in haute cuisine style,
right in his private office, by a highly skilled chef, paid by the company
where he consults. [I've had to pleasure of sharing a number of those
lunches; they rival those in fine restaurants in downtown S.F.] Our son is
also routinely able to negotiate and receive a pricey sports car, first
class airline travel, memberships in numerous clubs, "free" wines, cigars,
books, tech equipment, etc., all at the company's cost. . . . Our son is not
so stupid as to believe that any of this is done for him because they 'like
him', or will continue, except as a byproduct of the exceptional profits
that his consulting enables the company to make. And, no union got him
these lovely perks.)

No, it's not unionism that has driven such employers to resort to overseas
outsourcing.

Indeed, with unions nowadays representing only about 11% of America's
workforce, (and most of them in the area of public employment), union's
simply aren't that great a force in America's economy anymore. Most people
I talk to say that they never will be again, . . UNTIL things take a great
and long-term turn for the worse economically, at which time, predictably,
employees will increasingly seek help through unity.

Most people I talk to on the subject say that the primary cause of
outsourcing is simply that our former edge in producing a technologically
superior and educated work force is fast disappearing. And, countries such
as India are turning our loads of engineers and other techie types, who are
quite happy to work at what would be considered poverty level wages in the
U.S. (For example, for years and years, employers in the electronic
industry have had to repeatedly petition congress annually to allow roughly
90,000 workers from such countries as India and Pakistan to come to the U.S.
to work, since the U.S. educational system simply doesn't supply enough
workers in the field; every year the congress-people ask "What happened to
the ones we granted you last year?" and are told that they've simply
disappeared into the economy; no one bothers to look for them, since they're
hard working, law abiding, and are now tax payers. So, each year, congress
has been forced to give the industry yet another load of foreign workers.
Now, however, it's becoming ever easier and cheaper for the employer to just
take the job overseas than it is to bring workers to the U.S.)

Further, the very fact ever increasing improvements in technology's widening
reach makes it easier, cheaper, and quicker by the day to outsource jobs.
Even jobs of relatively low paid clerical workers can be done overseas, as a
savings. A prime example today is the number of 'call centers' that answer
our day by day questions; when we call the store right across town to get
help with a product that we've bought or might buy, we often speak to
someone many thousands of miles away, because the electronic link between us
and that distant clerk doesn't give a hoot how far it has to travel.

On a personal level, I've seen a bit of this influence at work. For the
last years of my career I didn't bother going in to my office unless I had a
specific reason to be there to see someone face to face. And that proved to
be less and less necessary as time went by. As a result, during those
years, I spent a couple less hours each day commuting, parking, going to
lunch, etc., and yet my productivity increase was measurably significant and
sustained. All with less wear and tear on me and my older body. Freeing me
to work pretty much when I chose, just so long as the work was done well and
quickly. It "worked". So much so that for the last several years, half a
dozen employees such as me volunteered to let our employer save on rental
costs by doing away altogether with our private offices; our employer gladly
accepted, saving hundreds of thousands annually just in office rental
expenses. Using e-mail, FAX, mobile phones, etc., I turned out to be even
more accessable to anyone who wanted to contact me than I'd been all those
years when I kept regular office hours in downtown S.F. Indeed, I had a
personal secretary for the last seven years of my career whom I've never
met, even once; she lived and worked in Wyoming, while I was based in San
Francisco, and travelled throughout the western half of the U.S., and the
Pacific rim areas. She kept my appointments, scheduling most of them,
forwarded mail or other paperwork to me as needed (almost all
electronically), answered my phone, and everything else one would expect a
secretary to do. I just never laid eyes on her. We originally tried this
out as an experiment, after finding that we couldn't pay what personal
secretaries in the Bay Area demanded. So, we got one elsewhere, at almost
half the price, about 1,300 miles away, and, to boot, we also saved the cost
of providing her with an office or virtually any equipment besides a
telephone, a FAX, a computer/word processor, and about three pieces of
furniture.

Oh, and by the way, when I started that job in S.F. back in the '70s, we
worked our tails off, and there were 33 of us in all in positions such as
mine. Each of had a rather large suite of offices, complete with a library,
and with at least two or three personal assistants or secretaries. By the
time I retired, our workload had increased, but was being done by only 8 of
us, yet we were doing it more quickly, and none of us had any need of
private offices, much less libraries, or personal assistants. . . . When we
first were provided with computers in the '80s, some of my colleagues were
resistant. They refused to become 'typists'. They insisted on retaining
their perks and space and assistants; our employer was wise enough not to
insist on them changing. But, within a few years, almost all of my
colleagues had seen the light, to wit, that computers and electronic gizmos
were, in fact, personal 'freedom machines.' By the time I retired, almost
half my colleagues no longer even lived in the Bay Area, though they were
all 'based' there; instead, they each saved hundreds of thousands of dollars
by living elsewhere where housing was enormously less expensive. (This, in
turn, opens the positions up to a greater number of qualified applicants
than were available formerly, since applicants no longer have to face the
daunting prospect of moving from the inexpensive hinterlands into the
stultifying housing market of the Bay Area.)

In sum, in the end it's market forces that will inevitably win out.
Employers will compete, and they will do whatever they have to do in order
to be successful. But, as you can see from my story above, it doesn't need
to be a confrantation between labor and management. With good will, and
some imagination, and willingness to learn, everybody can turn out to be
okay, even with unions.

In the end, the only safe worker is a worker who is better trained or
brighter than other workers, and who has chosen to work in a field where the
need for workers outstrips their supply.

It's a hard fact, but it's a true fact that some of us just won't be able to
keep up. Some won't even try. And, we're going to have to find a way to
deal with the result that fewer and fewer of us will actually be in demand,
and that more and more of us will necessarily be dependant upon others to
provide our livelihood.

That's not pinko talk. And, it's sure not laissez faire capitalism. But,
I really think that we're going to have to sit down and find some sort of
compromise that'll cope with the monumental problems heading our way.

Best now to end this rant, and go and try to find a doctor and see what's
happening to my beloved. Cheers to those two lonely souls who persevered to
this point. (Hey, what's YOUR excuse for having so much idle time on your
hands this evening?)

HH
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to drastically
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the hell
out?
Post by a***@invalid.net
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:18:36 -0800, Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Oh, like having a low paying job guarantees it is not going to be
shipped off to China. Just look at Mexico. We sent our factories there,
but they were just not cheap enough.
I don't know why anyone is against fair compensation or bargaining as a
group for wages. What's the alternative? Awaiting on the generosity of
the corporation's president?
How many of the tech support and CSR positions that are now located in
India, the Philippines and Caribbean were filled by union workers?
How many of the Earthlink and Echostar support workers who lost their
jobs to off shore operations were union members??????
Frank
2004-01-20 23:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawth Hill
Perhaps I misread your intent. If so, I apologize. But, if I am correct in
::trimmed to save space::

The boom in America's world presence and power is thanks in large part to
World War II, not unions. You want to know about inneffienciencies, just say
the word "Longshoreman". The two terms are synonomous. The blue collar world
is full of examples just like the Longshoreman. Do you think the following
professions are paid a fair wage, or an exorbitant wage, in comparison with
other professions of equal or greater skill.

Auto workers
aforementioned longshoreman, or dockworkers
union janitors and trash collectors in metro areas
City transit workers and mechanics

Necessary professions, granted, but you should not be paid wages that
approach 6 figures for any of these postions. These and countless other
examples have had a hand in ours becoming more of a service economy and many
factory and tech jobs sprouting wings and taking flight.
Hawth Hill
2004-01-21 01:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
at
Post by Hawth Hill
Perhaps I misread your intent. If so, I apologize. But, if I am correct
in
The boom in America's world presence and power is thanks in large part to
World War II, not unions. You want to know about inneffienciencies, just say
the word "Longshoreman". The two terms are synonomous.
Please re-read what I wrote. I never said, and did not mean, that the boom
us due to unions. What I said, and what I meant, was that the boom
coincided with the great growth of unionism in America. That tells me, and
most economists, that unionism and a growing healthy economy are not
inconsistent with one another.

As for the Longshoremen, I did ask not to be told of ad hominem stories. I
have no doubt that they, and other unions, have from time to time behaved
abusively. But, as I also said, the law is on the books to protect us from
such behavior. I know, I happen to have prosecuted several cases against
the Longshoremen over the years, just as I also prosecuted several cases
against employers of Longshoremen.

As for quantifying which jobs are paid "fairly" in comparison to others, how
did the subject get around to that? Collective bargaining is largely about
relative economic strength when it comes to setting wages rates, not
'fairness.' That was, in part, why I recounted the story of our son's good
fortune; his bounty, as I said, doesn't spring out of 'fairness,' but only
from the fact that someone thinks he's worth it, and readily pays it.
Similarly, one hesitates to get into the subject of 'fairness' in pay
scales. We all know the sums that entertainers and sports figures are paid;
compared to what many in the teaching and healing professions, for example,
those sums seem so out of line as to be truly obscene. Yet, when we want to
see our local pro football team, we don't begrudge the work-a-day offensive
tackle his million dollar a year salary. We realize that what he can do can
be done as well as he does it by very, very few others.

It is simplistic to think of "unions" as being "good" or "bad", just as it
is to think of corporations in those terms. Each type of entity has been
endlessly shown to have people working within their own system to get as
much as they can, and hang morality. That's why, I might add, that I was at
pains to point out that we have laws to deal with those types. And, sooner
or later, they'll get what's coming to them.

HH
Post by Frank
The blue collar world
is full of examples just like the Longshoreman. Do you think the following
professions are paid a fair wage, or an exorbitant wage, in comparison with
other professions of equal or greater skill.
Auto workers
aforementioned longshoreman, or dockworkers
union janitors and trash collectors in metro areas
City transit workers and mechanics
Necessary professions, granted, but you should not be paid wages that
approach 6 figures for any of these postions. These and countless other
examples have had a hand in ours becoming more of a service economy and many
factory and tech jobs sprouting wings and taking flight.
Paul Poulos
2004-01-21 12:41:22 UTC
Permalink
To Hawth Hill:

I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to provide the analysis that
you have. Hope your loved one recovers quickly -- and sorry that it took
those circumstances to provide us with the benefit of your thinking.

I think what you said is true, i.e.,

"...But, I really think that we're going to have to sit down and find some
sort of compromise that'll cope with the monumental problems heading our
way..."

I think it would greatly benefit us all to hear any thoughts you might have
gained over the years in connection with solving some of the "monumental
problems" that will surely be visited on us.

Thanks once again,
Paul
Post by Hawth Hill
Perhaps I misread your intent. If so, I apologize. But, if I am correct in
inferring that you mean to blame the loss of jobs in the U.S. to the
influence of higher union wages, then I don't think that conclusion will
withstand analysis. So far as I know jobs in Silicon Valley have long been
nearly all non-union. (While I don't claim to know it all, I am willing to
set out the basis for my belief that know "quite a bit"; until recently I
lived on the Peninsula, where Silicon Valley is located, for the past
quarter century, specializing in labor relations the entire time.) [I
leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether the
absence of unions among Silicon Valley's workers is a good thing or a bad
thing; I purposely don't state my position here.]
Instead, I will simply note that the fact that workers have a long
established _right_ under the law to organize and engage in collective
bargaining. See NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, also cited NLRA or the Act;
29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, where at, Title 29, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, United
It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes
of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to
mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by
encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by
protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing,
for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or
other mutual aid or protection.
In other words, having a union or not having a union is no longer a novel
question, or one that should prove particularly divisive. That's not MY
idea. That's the "declared policy of the United States", . . . ENCOURAGING
the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. That's the law, like
it or not. And, under that law, literally millions and millions of
potential labor disputes have been resolved with little cost or conflict,
and even less public notice.
Of note, the period during which employees' have enjoyed the statutory right
to organize and engage in collective bargaining happens to rather neatly
correspond to the period of time during which the U.S. became economically
dominant over the world, as well as the period during which American workers
practically invented the 'middle class,' and all its shared prosperity.
So,
Post by Hawth Hill
to many, the assertions that unions cause employers to fail, or be less
competitive, seems obvious nonsense, flying in the face of a long and rich
history that shows exactly the opposite. (Oh, I know, I know, many here
will jump to respond that they know of instances where unions have insisted
upon inefficiencies, or have led to unworthy employees keeping jobs that
they didn't deserve. Well, I know of such instances as well. Everyone in
the field does. But, we also know that the law contains provisions to
safeguard against abuses such as these. Let's not waste one another's time
and efforts by indulging in ad hominem example-citing, O.K.?) It remains an
undeniable fact that the greatest periods of economic growth and prosperity
that America, or the world, have ever witnessed coincided with the time when
the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining was, for the first
time, protected by U.S. law. So, be forewarned, that I regard those who
argue that having a union is somehow inconsistent with prosperity and / or
competitiveness as having a heavy load to carry in proving their point.
But, I happen to unavoidably have lots of time to kill this evening, as I'm
waiting for a dear one to come out of surgery. To distract while I wait,
I'm gonna wade into this particular discussion. For those who are averse to
lengthy rants, stop now, and go on to the next post. Otherwise, read on
only so long as it's interesting.
Here goes, my 2,000 cents worth.
The reason why such jobs as those in the high tech fields of Silicon Valley
are not unionized has long been thought to be obvious. That is, it's in
line with the old truism in labor relations, which goes like, "Union
organizers know better than to waste their time, money, and efforts, in
attempting to organize workers who are not unhappy." Such campaigns are not
only wasteful, but also introduce discord into lots of lives that lingers
long after the campaign is over and done.
True enough, there are malcontents in every workforce, (Oftentime with very
good reason. Not infrequently, however, with no decent reason at all, other
than sloth or emotional illness.) But, to go on, if the great majority of
the workforce is happy, the malcontents and the organizers simply can't gain
any traction. And efforts to organize will virtually always fail.
History
Post by Hawth Hill
shows that this is true, nearly always. Lawyers representing both sides of
the management / labor table will say this same thing, over and over and
over. (Not all, to be sure; certainly not the ones who depend upon
fomenting confrontations in order to justify their fees.) But, the vast
majority of management lawyers will confess to one, in private, that most
unionization campaigns are brought on by lazy or incompetent management,
especially by lower level managers who are allowed to get away with running
little power games that ultimately anger employees into looking around for a
way to stop it.
For decades and decades this truism has proven correct, time and time and
time again. Lincoln Electric and Hershey Chocolate are prime examples of
utterly "union-proof" work forces. Neither company has ever been found
guilty of an unfair labor practice. Or had to sit down and bargain with a
union. They were made "union-proof" by enlightened management. For decades
and decades. Throughout numerous attempts by skillful union organizers.
These companies invariably won the elections in which their employees were
the only voters.
Many other employers have learned to compete and excel in their fields, even
with a unionized workforce, often with the former labor - management
antagonists and representatives acquiring a true sophistication over the
years. In instance after instance, many employers have come to actually
prefer to operate a unionized business, generally on the basis that it
enables the employer to count on a stable workforce, at predictable costs,
and with a time honored method in place to deal with the inevitable
conflicts that arise in every work place.
On the other end of the scale, there have been many, many renowned, bitter,
and unbelievably costly, fights to keep unions out by means of unfair labor
practices, commonly called 'union busting'. Some employers have even gone
broke and/or out of business in such confrontations. (I purposely do not
name any such employers here, as their specific identity is not relevant
here.) These days, not so many employers resort to such practices, having
learned that it's less costly, and more effective in the long run, to use
lawful tactics to resist organizational efforts, or simply to keep workers
happy. There are a number of highly successful law firms representing
employers whose clients are virtually never found to have committed either
unfair labor practices, or other conduct that unfairly affects the results
of an election by workers.
Silicon Valley's entrepeneurs have, by and large, seen it as being in their
own enlightened self interest to keep a tight grip on as much of their
autonomy as possible, thereby enabling themselves to move quickly, without
having to consult or engage in collective bargaining, to meet rapidly
changing circumstances. The way they've done that is to set up systems that
treat their employees royally in many, many instances, and to pay them a
very high wage, topped off by options that can truly be princely. Ergo, no
unhappy workers, and no unions. But, all the while, providing nice profits
to the employer. (For example, our son, a Silicon Valley independent
consultant, has his daily luncheon meal prepared, in haute cuisine style,
right in his private office, by a highly skilled chef, paid by the company
where he consults. [I've had to pleasure of sharing a number of those
lunches; they rival those in fine restaurants in downtown S.F.] Our son is
also routinely able to negotiate and receive a pricey sports car, first
class airline travel, memberships in numerous clubs, "free" wines, cigars,
books, tech equipment, etc., all at the company's cost. . . . Our son is not
so stupid as to believe that any of this is done for him because they 'like
him', or will continue, except as a byproduct of the exceptional profits
that his consulting enables the company to make. And, no union got him
these lovely perks.)
No, it's not unionism that has driven such employers to resort to overseas
outsourcing.
Indeed, with unions nowadays representing only about 11% of America's
workforce, (and most of them in the area of public employment), union's
simply aren't that great a force in America's economy anymore. Most people
I talk to say that they never will be again, . . UNTIL things take a great
and long-term turn for the worse economically, at which time, predictably,
employees will increasingly seek help through unity.
Most people I talk to on the subject say that the primary cause of
outsourcing is simply that our former edge in producing a technologically
superior and educated work force is fast disappearing. And, countries such
as India are turning our loads of engineers and other techie types, who are
quite happy to work at what would be considered poverty level wages in the
U.S. (For example, for years and years, employers in the electronic
industry have had to repeatedly petition congress annually to allow roughly
90,000 workers from such countries as India and Pakistan to come to the U.S.
to work, since the U.S. educational system simply doesn't supply enough
workers in the field; every year the congress-people ask "What happened to
the ones we granted you last year?" and are told that they've simply
disappeared into the economy; no one bothers to look for them, since they're
hard working, law abiding, and are now tax payers. So, each year, congress
has been forced to give the industry yet another load of foreign workers.
Now, however, it's becoming ever easier and cheaper for the employer to just
take the job overseas than it is to bring workers to the U.S.)
Further, the very fact ever increasing improvements in technology's widening
reach makes it easier, cheaper, and quicker by the day to outsource jobs.
Even jobs of relatively low paid clerical workers can be done overseas, as a
savings. A prime example today is the number of 'call centers' that answer
our day by day questions; when we call the store right across town to get
help with a product that we've bought or might buy, we often speak to
someone many thousands of miles away, because the electronic link between us
and that distant clerk doesn't give a hoot how far it has to travel.
On a personal level, I've seen a bit of this influence at work. For the
last years of my career I didn't bother going in to my office unless I had a
specific reason to be there to see someone face to face. And that proved to
be less and less necessary as time went by. As a result, during those
years, I spent a couple less hours each day commuting, parking, going to
lunch, etc., and yet my productivity increase was measurably significant and
sustained. All with less wear and tear on me and my older body. Freeing me
to work pretty much when I chose, just so long as the work was done well and
quickly. It "worked". So much so that for the last several years, half a
dozen employees such as me volunteered to let our employer save on rental
costs by doing away altogether with our private offices; our employer gladly
accepted, saving hundreds of thousands annually just in office rental
expenses. Using e-mail, FAX, mobile phones, etc., I turned out to be even
more accessable to anyone who wanted to contact me than I'd been all those
years when I kept regular office hours in downtown S.F. Indeed, I had a
personal secretary for the last seven years of my career whom I've never
met, even once; she lived and worked in Wyoming, while I was based in San
Francisco, and travelled throughout the western half of the U.S., and the
Pacific rim areas. She kept my appointments, scheduling most of them,
forwarded mail or other paperwork to me as needed (almost all
electronically), answered my phone, and everything else one would expect a
secretary to do. I just never laid eyes on her. We originally tried this
out as an experiment, after finding that we couldn't pay what personal
secretaries in the Bay Area demanded. So, we got one elsewhere, at almost
half the price, about 1,300 miles away, and, to boot, we also saved the cost
of providing her with an office or virtually any equipment besides a
telephone, a FAX, a computer/word processor, and about three pieces of
furniture.
Oh, and by the way, when I started that job in S.F. back in the '70s, we
worked our tails off, and there were 33 of us in all in positions such as
mine. Each of had a rather large suite of offices, complete with a library,
and with at least two or three personal assistants or secretaries. By the
time I retired, our workload had increased, but was being done by only 8 of
us, yet we were doing it more quickly, and none of us had any need of
private offices, much less libraries, or personal assistants. . . . When we
first were provided with computers in the '80s, some of my colleagues were
resistant. They refused to become 'typists'. They insisted on retaining
their perks and space and assistants; our employer was wise enough not to
insist on them changing. But, within a few years, almost all of my
colleagues had seen the light, to wit, that computers and electronic gizmos
were, in fact, personal 'freedom machines.' By the time I retired, almost
half my colleagues no longer even lived in the Bay Area, though they were
all 'based' there; instead, they each saved hundreds of thousands of dollars
by living elsewhere where housing was enormously less expensive. (This, in
turn, opens the positions up to a greater number of qualified applicants
than were available formerly, since applicants no longer have to face the
daunting prospect of moving from the inexpensive hinterlands into the
stultifying housing market of the Bay Area.)
In sum, in the end it's market forces that will inevitably win out.
Employers will compete, and they will do whatever they have to do in order
to be successful. But, as you can see from my story above, it doesn't need
to be a confrantation between labor and management. With good will, and
some imagination, and willingness to learn, everybody can turn out to be
okay, even with unions.
In the end, the only safe worker is a worker who is better trained or
brighter than other workers, and who has chosen to work in a field where the
need for workers outstrips their supply.
It's a hard fact, but it's a true fact that some of us just won't be able to
keep up. Some won't even try. And, we're going to have to find a way to
deal with the result that fewer and fewer of us will actually be in demand,
and that more and more of us will necessarily be dependant upon others to
provide our livelihood.
That's not pinko talk. And, it's sure not laissez faire capitalism.
But,
Post by Hawth Hill
I really think that we're going to have to sit down and find some sort of
compromise that'll cope with the monumental problems heading our way.
Best now to end this rant, and go and try to find a doctor and see what's
happening to my beloved. Cheers to those two lonely souls who persevered to
this point. (Hey, what's YOUR excuse for having so much idle time on your
hands this evening?)
HH
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to drastically
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the hell
out?
Post by a***@invalid.net
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:18:36 -0800, Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Oh, like having a low paying job guarantees it is not going to be
shipped off to China. Just look at Mexico. We sent our factories there,
but they were just not cheap enough.
I don't know why anyone is against fair compensation or bargaining as a
group for wages. What's the alternative? Awaiting on the generosity of
the corporation's president?
How many of the tech support and CSR positions that are now located in
India, the Philippines and Caribbean were filled by union workers?
How many of the Earthlink and Echostar support workers who lost their
jobs to off shore operations were union members??????
Michael Legel
2004-01-21 15:28:06 UTC
Permalink
A very balanced and refreshing response. I too hope your dear one has
faired well.

I personally think our union, employer and indeed national societal problems
devolve around an inability to cope with the integration of technology.
Workers replaced have so little say and employers use this technology to
replace workers. We, as a world society, haven't found a way to make these
machines make life better for everyone because we are intent on using them
to make money ... which is not at all the same thing.
Post by Hawth Hill
Perhaps I misread your intent. If so, I apologize. But, if I am correct in
inferring that you mean to blame the loss of jobs in the U.S. to the
influence of higher union wages, then I don't think that conclusion will
withstand analysis. So far as I know jobs in Silicon Valley have long been
nearly all non-union. (While I don't claim to know it all, I am willing to
set out the basis for my belief that know "quite a bit"; until recently I
lived on the Peninsula, where Silicon Valley is located, for the past
quarter century, specializing in labor relations the entire time.) [I
leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether the
absence of unions among Silicon Valley's workers is a good thing or a bad
thing; I purposely don't state my position here.]
Instead, I will simply note that the fact that workers have a long
established _right_ under the law to organize and engage in collective
bargaining. See NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, also cited NLRA or the Act;
29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, where at, Title 29, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, United
It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes
of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to
mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by
encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by
protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing,
for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or
other mutual aid or protection.
In other words, having a union or not having a union is no longer a novel
question, or one that should prove particularly divisive. That's not MY
idea. That's the "declared policy of the United States", . . . ENCOURAGING
the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. That's the law, like
it or not. And, under that law, literally millions and millions of
potential labor disputes have been resolved with little cost or conflict,
and even less public notice.
Of note, the period during which employees' have enjoyed the statutory right
to organize and engage in collective bargaining happens to rather neatly
correspond to the period of time during which the U.S. became economically
dominant over the world, as well as the period during which American workers
practically invented the 'middle class,' and all its shared prosperity.
So,
Post by Hawth Hill
to many, the assertions that unions cause employers to fail, or be less
competitive, seems obvious nonsense, flying in the face of a long and rich
history that shows exactly the opposite. (Oh, I know, I know, many here
will jump to respond that they know of instances where unions have insisted
upon inefficiencies, or have led to unworthy employees keeping jobs that
they didn't deserve. Well, I know of such instances as well. Everyone in
the field does. But, we also know that the law contains provisions to
safeguard against abuses such as these. Let's not waste one another's time
and efforts by indulging in ad hominem example-citing, O.K.?) It remains an
undeniable fact that the greatest periods of economic growth and prosperity
that America, or the world, have ever witnessed coincided with the time when
the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining was, for the first
time, protected by U.S. law. So, be forewarned, that I regard those who
argue that having a union is somehow inconsistent with prosperity and / or
competitiveness as having a heavy load to carry in proving their point.
But, I happen to unavoidably have lots of time to kill this evening, as I'm
waiting for a dear one to come out of surgery. To distract while I wait,
I'm gonna wade into this particular discussion. For those who are averse to
lengthy rants, stop now, and go on to the next post. Otherwise, read on
only so long as it's interesting.
Here goes, my 2,000 cents worth.
The reason why such jobs as those in the high tech fields of Silicon Valley
are not unionized has long been thought to be obvious. That is, it's in
line with the old truism in labor relations, which goes like, "Union
organizers know better than to waste their time, money, and efforts, in
attempting to organize workers who are not unhappy." Such campaigns are not
only wasteful, but also introduce discord into lots of lives that lingers
long after the campaign is over and done.
True enough, there are malcontents in every workforce, (Oftentime with very
good reason. Not infrequently, however, with no decent reason at all, other
than sloth or emotional illness.) But, to go on, if the great majority of
the workforce is happy, the malcontents and the organizers simply can't gain
any traction. And efforts to organize will virtually always fail.
History
Post by Hawth Hill
shows that this is true, nearly always. Lawyers representing both sides of
the management / labor table will say this same thing, over and over and
over. (Not all, to be sure; certainly not the ones who depend upon
fomenting confrontations in order to justify their fees.) But, the vast
majority of management lawyers will confess to one, in private, that most
unionization campaigns are brought on by lazy or incompetent management,
especially by lower level managers who are allowed to get away with running
little power games that ultimately anger employees into looking around for a
way to stop it.
For decades and decades this truism has proven correct, time and time and
time again. Lincoln Electric and Hershey Chocolate are prime examples of
utterly "union-proof" work forces. Neither company has ever been found
guilty of an unfair labor practice. Or had to sit down and bargain with a
union. They were made "union-proof" by enlightened management. For decades
and decades. Throughout numerous attempts by skillful union organizers.
These companies invariably won the elections in which their employees were
the only voters.
Many other employers have learned to compete and excel in their fields, even
with a unionized workforce, often with the former labor - management
antagonists and representatives acquiring a true sophistication over the
years. In instance after instance, many employers have come to actually
prefer to operate a unionized business, generally on the basis that it
enables the employer to count on a stable workforce, at predictable costs,
and with a time honored method in place to deal with the inevitable
conflicts that arise in every work place.
On the other end of the scale, there have been many, many renowned, bitter,
and unbelievably costly, fights to keep unions out by means of unfair labor
practices, commonly called 'union busting'. Some employers have even gone
broke and/or out of business in such confrontations. (I purposely do not
name any such employers here, as their specific identity is not relevant
here.) These days, not so many employers resort to such practices, having
learned that it's less costly, and more effective in the long run, to use
lawful tactics to resist organizational efforts, or simply to keep workers
happy. There are a number of highly successful law firms representing
employers whose clients are virtually never found to have committed either
unfair labor practices, or other conduct that unfairly affects the results
of an election by workers.
Silicon Valley's entrepeneurs have, by and large, seen it as being in their
own enlightened self interest to keep a tight grip on as much of their
autonomy as possible, thereby enabling themselves to move quickly, without
having to consult or engage in collective bargaining, to meet rapidly
changing circumstances. The way they've done that is to set up systems that
treat their employees royally in many, many instances, and to pay them a
very high wage, topped off by options that can truly be princely. Ergo, no
unhappy workers, and no unions. But, all the while, providing nice profits
to the employer. (For example, our son, a Silicon Valley independent
consultant, has his daily luncheon meal prepared, in haute cuisine style,
right in his private office, by a highly skilled chef, paid by the company
where he consults. [I've had to pleasure of sharing a number of those
lunches; they rival those in fine restaurants in downtown S.F.] Our son is
also routinely able to negotiate and receive a pricey sports car, first
class airline travel, memberships in numerous clubs, "free" wines, cigars,
books, tech equipment, etc., all at the company's cost. . . . Our son is not
so stupid as to believe that any of this is done for him because they 'like
him', or will continue, except as a byproduct of the exceptional profits
that his consulting enables the company to make. And, no union got him
these lovely perks.)
No, it's not unionism that has driven such employers to resort to overseas
outsourcing.
Indeed, with unions nowadays representing only about 11% of America's
workforce, (and most of them in the area of public employment), union's
simply aren't that great a force in America's economy anymore. Most people
I talk to say that they never will be again, . . UNTIL things take a great
and long-term turn for the worse economically, at which time, predictably,
employees will increasingly seek help through unity.
Most people I talk to on the subject say that the primary cause of
outsourcing is simply that our former edge in producing a technologically
superior and educated work force is fast disappearing. And, countries such
as India are turning our loads of engineers and other techie types, who are
quite happy to work at what would be considered poverty level wages in the
U.S. (For example, for years and years, employers in the electronic
industry have had to repeatedly petition congress annually to allow roughly
90,000 workers from such countries as India and Pakistan to come to the U.S.
to work, since the U.S. educational system simply doesn't supply enough
workers in the field; every year the congress-people ask "What happened to
the ones we granted you last year?" and are told that they've simply
disappeared into the economy; no one bothers to look for them, since they're
hard working, law abiding, and are now tax payers. So, each year, congress
has been forced to give the industry yet another load of foreign workers.
Now, however, it's becoming ever easier and cheaper for the employer to just
take the job overseas than it is to bring workers to the U.S.)
Further, the very fact ever increasing improvements in technology's widening
reach makes it easier, cheaper, and quicker by the day to outsource jobs.
Even jobs of relatively low paid clerical workers can be done overseas, as a
savings. A prime example today is the number of 'call centers' that answer
our day by day questions; when we call the store right across town to get
help with a product that we've bought or might buy, we often speak to
someone many thousands of miles away, because the electronic link between us
and that distant clerk doesn't give a hoot how far it has to travel.
On a personal level, I've seen a bit of this influence at work. For the
last years of my career I didn't bother going in to my office unless I had a
specific reason to be there to see someone face to face. And that proved to
be less and less necessary as time went by. As a result, during those
years, I spent a couple less hours each day commuting, parking, going to
lunch, etc., and yet my productivity increase was measurably significant and
sustained. All with less wear and tear on me and my older body. Freeing me
to work pretty much when I chose, just so long as the work was done well and
quickly. It "worked". So much so that for the last several years, half a
dozen employees such as me volunteered to let our employer save on rental
costs by doing away altogether with our private offices; our employer gladly
accepted, saving hundreds of thousands annually just in office rental
expenses. Using e-mail, FAX, mobile phones, etc., I turned out to be even
more accessable to anyone who wanted to contact me than I'd been all those
years when I kept regular office hours in downtown S.F. Indeed, I had a
personal secretary for the last seven years of my career whom I've never
met, even once; she lived and worked in Wyoming, while I was based in San
Francisco, and travelled throughout the western half of the U.S., and the
Pacific rim areas. She kept my appointments, scheduling most of them,
forwarded mail or other paperwork to me as needed (almost all
electronically), answered my phone, and everything else one would expect a
secretary to do. I just never laid eyes on her. We originally tried this
out as an experiment, after finding that we couldn't pay what personal
secretaries in the Bay Area demanded. So, we got one elsewhere, at almost
half the price, about 1,300 miles away, and, to boot, we also saved the cost
of providing her with an office or virtually any equipment besides a
telephone, a FAX, a computer/word processor, and about three pieces of
furniture.
Oh, and by the way, when I started that job in S.F. back in the '70s, we
worked our tails off, and there were 33 of us in all in positions such as
mine. Each of had a rather large suite of offices, complete with a library,
and with at least two or three personal assistants or secretaries. By the
time I retired, our workload had increased, but was being done by only 8 of
us, yet we were doing it more quickly, and none of us had any need of
private offices, much less libraries, or personal assistants. . . . When we
first were provided with computers in the '80s, some of my colleagues were
resistant. They refused to become 'typists'. They insisted on retaining
their perks and space and assistants; our employer was wise enough not to
insist on them changing. But, within a few years, almost all of my
colleagues had seen the light, to wit, that computers and electronic gizmos
were, in fact, personal 'freedom machines.' By the time I retired, almost
half my colleagues no longer even lived in the Bay Area, though they were
all 'based' there; instead, they each saved hundreds of thousands of dollars
by living elsewhere where housing was enormously less expensive. (This, in
turn, opens the positions up to a greater number of qualified applicants
than were available formerly, since applicants no longer have to face the
daunting prospect of moving from the inexpensive hinterlands into the
stultifying housing market of the Bay Area.)
In sum, in the end it's market forces that will inevitably win out.
Employers will compete, and they will do whatever they have to do in order
to be successful. But, as you can see from my story above, it doesn't need
to be a confrantation between labor and management. With good will, and
some imagination, and willingness to learn, everybody can turn out to be
okay, even with unions.
In the end, the only safe worker is a worker who is better trained or
brighter than other workers, and who has chosen to work in a field where the
need for workers outstrips their supply.
It's a hard fact, but it's a true fact that some of us just won't be able to
keep up. Some won't even try. And, we're going to have to find a way to
deal with the result that fewer and fewer of us will actually be in demand,
and that more and more of us will necessarily be dependant upon others to
provide our livelihood.
That's not pinko talk. And, it's sure not laissez faire capitalism.
But,
Post by Hawth Hill
I really think that we're going to have to sit down and find some sort of
compromise that'll cope with the monumental problems heading our way.
Best now to end this rant, and go and try to find a doctor and see what's
happening to my beloved. Cheers to those two lonely souls who persevered to
this point. (Hey, what's YOUR excuse for having so much idle time on your
hands this evening?)
HH
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to drastically
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the hell
out?
Post by a***@invalid.net
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:18:36 -0800, Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Oh, like having a low paying job guarantees it is not going to be
shipped off to China. Just look at Mexico. We sent our factories there,
but they were just not cheap enough.
I don't know why anyone is against fair compensation or bargaining as a
group for wages. What's the alternative? Awaiting on the generosity of
the corporation's president?
How many of the tech support and CSR positions that are now located in
India, the Philippines and Caribbean were filled by union workers?
How many of the Earthlink and Echostar support workers who lost their
jobs to off shore operations were union members??????
JoettaB
2004-01-21 16:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for a great post! Truly.

Joetta B
Post by Hawth Hill
Perhaps I misread your intent. If so, I apologize. But, if I am correct in
inferring that you mean to blame the loss of jobs in the U.S. to the
influence of higher union wages, then I don't think that conclusion will
withstand analysis. So far as I know jobs in Silicon Valley have long been
nearly all non-union. (While I don't claim to know it all, I am willing to
set out the basis for my belief that know "quite a bit"; until recently I
lived on the Peninsula, where Silicon Valley is located, for the past
quarter century, specializing in labor relations the entire time.) [I
leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether the
absence of unions among Silicon Valley's workers is a good thing or a bad
thing; I purposely don't state my position here.]
Instead, I will simply note that the fact that workers have a long
established _right_ under the law to organize and engage in collective
bargaining. See NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, also cited NLRA or the Act;
29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, where at, Title 29, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, United
It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes
of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to
mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by
encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by
protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing,
for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or
other mutual aid or protection.
In other words, having a union or not having a union is no longer a novel
question, or one that should prove particularly divisive. That's not MY
idea. That's the "declared policy of the United States", . . . ENCOURAGING
the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. That's the law, like
it or not. And, under that law, literally millions and millions of
potential labor disputes have been resolved with little cost or conflict,
and even less public notice.
Of note, the period during which employees' have enjoyed the statutory right
to organize and engage in collective bargaining happens to rather neatly
correspond to the period of time during which the U.S. became economically
dominant over the world, as well as the period during which American workers
practically invented the 'middle class,' and all its shared prosperity.
So,
Post by Hawth Hill
to many, the assertions that unions cause employers to fail, or be less
competitive, seems obvious nonsense, flying in the face of a long and rich
history that shows exactly the opposite. (Oh, I know, I know, many here
will jump to respond that they know of instances where unions have insisted
upon inefficiencies, or have led to unworthy employees keeping jobs that
they didn't deserve. Well, I know of such instances as well. Everyone in
the field does. But, we also know that the law contains provisions to
safeguard against abuses such as these. Let's not waste one another's time
and efforts by indulging in ad hominem example-citing, O.K.?) It remains an
undeniable fact that the greatest periods of economic growth and prosperity
that America, or the world, have ever witnessed coincided with the time when
the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining was, for the first
time, protected by U.S. law. So, be forewarned, that I regard those who
argue that having a union is somehow inconsistent with prosperity and / or
competitiveness as having a heavy load to carry in proving their point.
But, I happen to unavoidably have lots of time to kill this evening, as I'm
waiting for a dear one to come out of surgery. To distract while I wait,
I'm gonna wade into this particular discussion. For those who are averse to
lengthy rants, stop now, and go on to the next post. Otherwise, read on
only so long as it's interesting.
Here goes, my 2,000 cents worth.
The reason why such jobs as those in the high tech fields of Silicon Valley
are not unionized has long been thought to be obvious. That is, it's in
line with the old truism in labor relations, which goes like, "Union
organizers know better than to waste their time, money, and efforts, in
attempting to organize workers who are not unhappy." Such campaigns are not
only wasteful, but also introduce discord into lots of lives that lingers
long after the campaign is over and done.
True enough, there are malcontents in every workforce, (Oftentime with very
good reason. Not infrequently, however, with no decent reason at all, other
than sloth or emotional illness.) But, to go on, if the great majority of
the workforce is happy, the malcontents and the organizers simply can't gain
any traction. And efforts to organize will virtually always fail.
History
Post by Hawth Hill
shows that this is true, nearly always. Lawyers representing both sides of
the management / labor table will say this same thing, over and over and
over. (Not all, to be sure; certainly not the ones who depend upon
fomenting confrontations in order to justify their fees.) But, the vast
majority of management lawyers will confess to one, in private, that most
unionization campaigns are brought on by lazy or incompetent management,
especially by lower level managers who are allowed to get away with running
little power games that ultimately anger employees into looking around for a
way to stop it.
For decades and decades this truism has proven correct, time and time and
time again. Lincoln Electric and Hershey Chocolate are prime examples of
utterly "union-proof" work forces. Neither company has ever been found
guilty of an unfair labor practice. Or had to sit down and bargain with a
union. They were made "union-proof" by enlightened management. For decades
and decades. Throughout numerous attempts by skillful union organizers.
These companies invariably won the elections in which their employees were
the only voters.
Many other employers have learned to compete and excel in their fields, even
with a unionized workforce, often with the former labor - management
antagonists and representatives acquiring a true sophistication over the
years. In instance after instance, many employers have come to actually
prefer to operate a unionized business, generally on the basis that it
enables the employer to count on a stable workforce, at predictable costs,
and with a time honored method in place to deal with the inevitable
conflicts that arise in every work place.
On the other end of the scale, there have been many, many renowned, bitter,
and unbelievably costly, fights to keep unions out by means of unfair labor
practices, commonly called 'union busting'. Some employers have even gone
broke and/or out of business in such confrontations. (I purposely do not
name any such employers here, as their specific identity is not relevant
here.) These days, not so many employers resort to such practices, having
learned that it's less costly, and more effective in the long run, to use
lawful tactics to resist organizational efforts, or simply to keep workers
happy. There are a number of highly successful law firms representing
employers whose clients are virtually never found to have committed either
unfair labor practices, or other conduct that unfairly affects the results
of an election by workers.
Silicon Valley's entrepeneurs have, by and large, seen it as being in their
own enlightened self interest to keep a tight grip on as much of their
autonomy as possible, thereby enabling themselves to move quickly, without
having to consult or engage in collective bargaining, to meet rapidly
changing circumstances. The way they've done that is to set up systems that
treat their employees royally in many, many instances, and to pay them a
very high wage, topped off by options that can truly be princely. Ergo, no
unhappy workers, and no unions. But, all the while, providing nice profits
to the employer. (For example, our son, a Silicon Valley independent
consultant, has his daily luncheon meal prepared, in haute cuisine style,
right in his private office, by a highly skilled chef, paid by the company
where he consults. [I've had to pleasure of sharing a number of those
lunches; they rival those in fine restaurants in downtown S.F.] Our son is
also routinely able to negotiate and receive a pricey sports car, first
class airline travel, memberships in numerous clubs, "free" wines, cigars,
books, tech equipment, etc., all at the company's cost. . . . Our son is not
so stupid as to believe that any of this is done for him because they 'like
him', or will continue, except as a byproduct of the exceptional profits
that his consulting enables the company to make. And, no union got him
these lovely perks.)
No, it's not unionism that has driven such employers to resort to overseas
outsourcing.
Indeed, with unions nowadays representing only about 11% of America's
workforce, (and most of them in the area of public employment), union's
simply aren't that great a force in America's economy anymore. Most people
I talk to say that they never will be again, . . UNTIL things take a great
and long-term turn for the worse economically, at which time, predictably,
employees will increasingly seek help through unity.
Most people I talk to on the subject say that the primary cause of
outsourcing is simply that our former edge in producing a technologically
superior and educated work force is fast disappearing. And, countries such
as India are turning our loads of engineers and other techie types, who are
quite happy to work at what would be considered poverty level wages in the
U.S. (For example, for years and years, employers in the electronic
industry have had to repeatedly petition congress annually to allow roughly
90,000 workers from such countries as India and Pakistan to come to the U.S.
to work, since the U.S. educational system simply doesn't supply enough
workers in the field; every year the congress-people ask "What happened to
the ones we granted you last year?" and are told that they've simply
disappeared into the economy; no one bothers to look for them, since they're
hard working, law abiding, and are now tax payers. So, each year, congress
has been forced to give the industry yet another load of foreign workers.
Now, however, it's becoming ever easier and cheaper for the employer to just
take the job overseas than it is to bring workers to the U.S.)
Further, the very fact ever increasing improvements in technology's widening
reach makes it easier, cheaper, and quicker by the day to outsource jobs.
Even jobs of relatively low paid clerical workers can be done overseas, as a
savings. A prime example today is the number of 'call centers' that answer
our day by day questions; when we call the store right across town to get
help with a product that we've bought or might buy, we often speak to
someone many thousands of miles away, because the electronic link between us
and that distant clerk doesn't give a hoot how far it has to travel.
On a personal level, I've seen a bit of this influence at work. For the
last years of my career I didn't bother going in to my office unless I had a
specific reason to be there to see someone face to face. And that proved to
be less and less necessary as time went by. As a result, during those
years, I spent a couple less hours each day commuting, parking, going to
lunch, etc., and yet my productivity increase was measurably significant and
sustained. All with less wear and tear on me and my older body. Freeing me
to work pretty much when I chose, just so long as the work was done well and
quickly. It "worked". So much so that for the last several years, half a
dozen employees such as me volunteered to let our employer save on rental
costs by doing away altogether with our private offices; our employer gladly
accepted, saving hundreds of thousands annually just in office rental
expenses. Using e-mail, FAX, mobile phones, etc., I turned out to be even
more accessable to anyone who wanted to contact me than I'd been all those
years when I kept regular office hours in downtown S.F. Indeed, I had a
personal secretary for the last seven years of my career whom I've never
met, even once; she lived and worked in Wyoming, while I was based in San
Francisco, and travelled throughout the western half of the U.S., and the
Pacific rim areas. She kept my appointments, scheduling most of them,
forwarded mail or other paperwork to me as needed (almost all
electronically), answered my phone, and everything else one would expect a
secretary to do. I just never laid eyes on her. We originally tried this
out as an experiment, after finding that we couldn't pay what personal
secretaries in the Bay Area demanded. So, we got one elsewhere, at almost
half the price, about 1,300 miles away, and, to boot, we also saved the cost
of providing her with an office or virtually any equipment besides a
telephone, a FAX, a computer/word processor, and about three pieces of
furniture.
Oh, and by the way, when I started that job in S.F. back in the '70s, we
worked our tails off, and there were 33 of us in all in positions such as
mine. Each of had a rather large suite of offices, complete with a library,
and with at least two or three personal assistants or secretaries. By the
time I retired, our workload had increased, but was being done by only 8 of
us, yet we were doing it more quickly, and none of us had any need of
private offices, much less libraries, or personal assistants. . . . When we
first were provided with computers in the '80s, some of my colleagues were
resistant. They refused to become 'typists'. They insisted on retaining
their perks and space and assistants; our employer was wise enough not to
insist on them changing. But, within a few years, almost all of my
colleagues had seen the light, to wit, that computers and electronic gizmos
were, in fact, personal 'freedom machines.' By the time I retired, almost
half my colleagues no longer even lived in the Bay Area, though they were
all 'based' there; instead, they each saved hundreds of thousands of dollars
by living elsewhere where housing was enormously less expensive. (This, in
turn, opens the positions up to a greater number of qualified applicants
than were available formerly, since applicants no longer have to face the
daunting prospect of moving from the inexpensive hinterlands into the
stultifying housing market of the Bay Area.)
In sum, in the end it's market forces that will inevitably win out.
Employers will compete, and they will do whatever they have to do in order
to be successful. But, as you can see from my story above, it doesn't need
to be a confrantation between labor and management. With good will, and
some imagination, and willingness to learn, everybody can turn out to be
okay, even with unions.
In the end, the only safe worker is a worker who is better trained or
brighter than other workers, and who has chosen to work in a field where the
need for workers outstrips their supply.
It's a hard fact, but it's a true fact that some of us just won't be able to
keep up. Some won't even try. And, we're going to have to find a way to
deal with the result that fewer and fewer of us will actually be in demand,
and that more and more of us will necessarily be dependant upon others to
provide our livelihood.
That's not pinko talk. And, it's sure not laissez faire capitalism.
But,
Post by Hawth Hill
I really think that we're going to have to sit down and find some sort of
compromise that'll cope with the monumental problems heading our way.
Best now to end this rant, and go and try to find a doctor and see what's
happening to my beloved. Cheers to those two lonely souls who persevered to
this point. (Hey, what's YOUR excuse for having so much idle time on your
hands this evening?)
HH
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to drastically
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the hell
out?
Post by a***@invalid.net
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:18:36 -0800, Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Oh, like having a low paying job guarantees it is not going to be
shipped off to China. Just look at Mexico. We sent our factories there,
but they were just not cheap enough.
I don't know why anyone is against fair compensation or bargaining as a
group for wages. What's the alternative? Awaiting on the generosity of
the corporation's president?
How many of the tech support and CSR positions that are now located in
India, the Philippines and Caribbean were filled by union workers?
How many of the Earthlink and Echostar support workers who lost their
jobs to off shore operations were union members??????
Michael Legel
2004-01-21 15:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Very few on all counts. The fact is that union workers, on average, make
more than non-union and are more productive. Those companies that "get the
hell out" actually stay incorporated here and use our country's
infrastructures and protections but don't hire our citizens. Those
businesses are leaches and ought to be thrown out of the country.
Post by Frank
How many non-union jobs pay union scale to keep out an actual union? How
many of these companies would pay these rates if not for the existence of
unions? How many companies would want to pass up the chance to drastically
increase their profits, and I mean drastically, due to the exorbitant and
ever growing cost of doing business in the good ole USA, by getting the hell
out?
Post by a***@invalid.net
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:18:36 -0800, Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Oh, like having a low paying job guarantees it is not going to be
shipped off to China. Just look at Mexico. We sent our factories there,
but they were just not cheap enough.
I don't know why anyone is against fair compensation or bargaining as a
group for wages. What's the alternative? Awaiting on the generosity of
the corporation's president?
How many of the tech support and CSR positions that are now located in
India, the Philippines and Caribbean were filled by union workers?
How many of the Earthlink and Echostar support workers who lost their
jobs to off shore operations were union members??????
Michael Legel
2004-01-21 15:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@invalid.net
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:18:36 -0800, Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by Marinus van der Lubbe
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Oh, like having a low paying job guarantees it is not going to be
shipped off to China. Just look at Mexico. We sent our factories there,
but they were just not cheap enough.
I don't know why anyone is against fair compensation or bargaining as a
group for wages. What's the alternative? Awaiting on the generosity of
the corporation's president?
How many of the tech support and CSR positions that are now located in
India, the Philippines and Caribbean were filled by union workers?
How many of the Earthlink and Echostar support workers who lost their
jobs to off shore operations were union members??????
How far back do you want to go? At one time most of the telephone industry
was unionized. Most new technology isn't unionized because our government
doesn't execute our labor laws and business can simply fire anyone who joins
a union. There was a time when the phrase "Are you now or have you ever
been a member of ..." used to apply to the McCarthy communist witch hunts.
Now it is part of the job application asking about unionism.
Michael Legel
2004-01-21 15:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Yes ... rampant overpayment to employees has always been a problem in
America. Rich employees have been drowning out poor businesses everywhere
you turn.
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Post by Frank
National Right To Work. What I am saying is, do you have a problem with
workers who dislike unionism and fight against it? Or would you rather they
abandon their jobs and work elsewhere? I ask, because this is a hypocrisy
that runs rampant on this ng and in pro-union surroundings everywhere
Frank
2004-01-21 18:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Toungue in cheek maybe, and worded for laughs, but true.
Post by Michael Legel
Yes ... rampant overpayment to employees has always been a problem in
America. Rich employees have been drowning out poor businesses everywhere
you turn.
Post by abdul rahim
x-no-archive: Yes
you hate the nail on the head. those self-serving union advocates
cling to their double standard, the unreasoning bastards. "the union
makes us strong!" they screech. more like, "the union forces a
company to pay us too much, until the company folds and we're all
jobless."
Post by Frank
National Right To Work. What I am saying is, do you have a problem with
workers who dislike unionism and fight against it? Or would you rather
they
Post by abdul rahim
Post by Frank
abandon their jobs and work elsewhere? I ask, because this is a
hypocrisy
Post by abdul rahim
Post by Frank
that runs rampant on this ng and in pro-union surroundings everywhere
Scott in Aztlán
2004-01-18 18:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by citizenjoe
New York Times
January 18, 2004
Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble
believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the
overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.
It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just
smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the
hospital.
The fire exit, he said,
was hardly an option - management had drummed into the overnight
workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they
would lose their jobs.
"My ankle was crushed," Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been
struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of
merchandise.
Mr. Rodriguez is a blithering moron. Anyone with half a brain would have used
the EMERGENCY EXIT in an EMERGENCY.
Post by citizenjoe
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime
areas.
And, of course, *every* Wal-Mart is a "high-crime area" since, if they didn't
lock them in, the overnight employees would rob the place blind.
Post by citizenjoe
"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that
has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked
to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are
always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one
manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."
Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's
lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R"
Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.
That might be true now, but when I worked at K-Mart during high school and did
lock-ins, I was the ONLY PERSON in the whole store for the entire night.
Post by citizenjoe
"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire
door and there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big
lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an
emergency like the place going up on fire."
The main reason that Wal-Mart and Sam's stores lock in workers,
several former store managers said, was not to protect employees but
to stop "shrinkage" - theft by employees and outsiders.
BINGO.
Post by citizenjoe
Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged that the seemingly obvious thing to have
done after breaking his ankle was to leave by the fire door, but he
and two dozen other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club workers said they had
repeatedly been warned never to do that unless there was a fire.
Leaving for any other reason, they said, could jeopardize the jobs of
the offending employee and the night supervisor.
OK, so take a heavy object and throw it through one of the plate glass windows.
Problem solved!
Post by citizenjoe
Regarding Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Williams said, "He was clearly capable of
walking out a fire door anytime during the night."
She added: "We tell associates that common sense has to prevail. Fire
doors are for emergencies, and by all means use them if you have
emergencies.
And that's the bottom line. Rodriguez is a moron.
Post by citizenjoe
The federal government and almost all states do not bar locking in
workers so long as they have access to an emergency exit. But several
longtime Wal-Mart workers recalled that in the late 1980's and early
1990's, the fire doors of some Wal-Marts were chained shut.
They have bowling balls in the Sporting Goods department. Bowl a strike and go
out the front door.
Post by citizenjoe
Wal-Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an
overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in
1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the
employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there
was no manager with a key.
That is truly scary. It's one thing if the employees are so whipped and/or
stupid as to not throw a shopping cart through the glass, but the PARAMEDICS
didn't think of it, either - and a person died as a result. If I were those
paramedics, I would have driven my goddamn truck through the front windows
rather than let someone die...
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
Salad
2004-01-18 20:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in Aztlán
Post by citizenjoe
Wal-Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an
overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in
1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the
employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there
was no manager with a key.
That is truly scary. It's one thing if the employees are so whipped and/or
stupid as to not throw a shopping cart through the glass, but the PARAMEDICS
didn't think of it, either - and a person died as a result. If I were those
paramedics, I would have driven my goddamn truck through the front windows
rather than let someone die...
I'm glad we could find a corporate ass-kisser in the bunch. Toadies like you make
the world go round. When you see an ass to kiss, you are like a lamprey. No
comment on the policy, blame the victims. I bet you are like Jesus...have
committed no sin, no stupidity, you are perfect, you are God. I am blinded by your
light.
Frank
2004-01-18 21:46:26 UTC
Permalink
You're right, we should all stand together to fight for the right of STUPID
IDIOTS WITH ZERO COMMON SENSE. Perhaps this particular gentleman in question
needs somone to occasionally remind him that you need to wipe your ass after
taking a shit, and use toilet paper, not sandpaper, lest we get sued for his
rash?
Post by Salad
Post by Scott in Aztlán
Post by citizenjoe
Wal-Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an
overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in
1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the
employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there
was no manager with a key.
That is truly scary. It's one thing if the employees are so whipped and/or
stupid as to not throw a shopping cart through the glass, but the PARAMEDICS
didn't think of it, either - and a person died as a result. If I were those
paramedics, I would have driven my goddamn truck through the front windows
rather than let someone die...
I'm glad we could find a corporate ass-kisser in the bunch. Toadies like you make
the world go round. When you see an ass to kiss, you are like a lamprey.
No
Post by Salad
comment on the policy, blame the victims. I bet you are like
Jesus...have
Post by Salad
committed no sin, no stupidity, you are perfect, you are God. I am blinded by your
light.
Salad
2004-01-19 23:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
You're right, we should all stand together to fight for the right of STUPID
IDIOTS WITH ZERO COMMON SENSE. Perhaps this particular gentleman in question
needs somone to occasionally remind him that you need to wipe your ass after
taking a shit, and use toilet paper, not sandpaper, lest we get sued for his
rash?
Hey Lamprey Boy, how does shit taste when you kiss ass?
Frank
2004-01-19 23:34:57 UTC
Permalink
I wouldn't know, I'm self employed, salad boy.
Post by Salad
Post by Frank
You're right, we should all stand together to fight for the right of STUPID
IDIOTS WITH ZERO COMMON SENSE. Perhaps this particular gentleman in question
needs somone to occasionally remind him that you need to wipe your ass after
taking a shit, and use toilet paper, not sandpaper, lest we get sued for his
rash?
Hey Lamprey Boy, how does shit taste when you kiss ass?
a***@invalid.net
2004-01-18 23:04:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:19:35 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
Post by Scott in Aztlán
OK, so take a heavy object and throw it through one of the plate glass windows.
Problem solved!
None of the "warehouse" stores that I have seen have plate glass
windows - or just plain windows for that matter, I did see some
heavily barred windows at the top of some of the walls tough!
Roger
2004-01-19 07:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@invalid.net
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:19:35 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
Post by Scott in Aztlán
OK, so take a heavy object and throw it through one of the plate glass windows.
Problem solved!
None of the "warehouse" stores that I have seen have plate glass
windows - or just plain windows for that matter, I did see some
heavily barred windows at the top of some of the walls tough!
Almost all of the ones in southern California are tilt-up concrete
construction, with 6" concrete rebar reinforced. The only holes are the
skylights and a few door. No windows.
Loading...