DiscussMormonism.com

To fight corporate tyranny...

Walmart Loses $224 Million Lawsuit For Stealing Lunch Breaks From 187,000 Workers

This is why Republicans hate unions so much.

If you want to know who the true welfare queen is, just understand this: Six Walton family members own 55% of Walmart today, there are 6 people who actually get $4 billion dollars a year in benefit from US taxpayers through wage subsidies to low paid workers.

I hate to agree with Kevin Graham on anything but I'm kind of sympathetic to this case. WalMart loves to force employees to work off the clock. In my mind WalMart deserved this.

But this globalization problem is only brought even closer to home with illegal and mass immigration which Kevin fights to keep as the status quo. Employers who use taxpayer earnings to subsidize cheap illegal immigrant labor do so in exactly the same manner as WalMart. Thanks to the Democrats and their bogus statistics that claim illegal immigration benefits the economy employers who resort to cheap illegal labor get away with it.

We should get rid of all companies like Walmart and the jobs they create. I think Kevin has some great insight - let the govt be responsible for what "at risk capital" creates. But then I may be ignorantly assuming most here have the slightest clue about what "at risk capital" really means.

It's like I have said before. Republican conservative rhetoric opposing and condemning "redistribution of wealth" is the purest and most blatant hypocrisy. They are fully in favor of redistribution of wealth as long as it continues in the present direction from the poorest of us to those who are already immensely wealthy. What they are really opposed to is not redistribution of wealth per se, but halting and reversing the current direction of that redistribution. With the growing and increasingly deplorable and problematic disparity between the very wealthiest and the poorest of us, reversal of the current direction of that redistribution is not just acceptable, it has become a moral imperative! The very idea that the wealthiest of us need or deserve a tax break is at the very least oxymoronic, if not downright obscene!

Gunnar wrote:It's like I have said before. Republican conservative rhetoric opposing and condemning "redistribution of wealth" is the purest and most blatant hypocrisy. They are fully in favor of redistribution of wealth as long as it continues in the present direction from the poorest of us to those who are already immensely wealthy. What they are really opposed to is not redistribution of wealth per se, but halting and reversing the current direction of that redistribution. With the growing and increasingly deplorable and problematic disparity between the very wealthiest and the poorest of us, reversal of the current direction of that redistribution is not just acceptable, it has become a moral imperative! The very idea that the wealthiest of us need or deserve a tax break is at the very least oxymoronic, if not downright obscene!

I'd love to hear your answers to solve what you think the problem is. But may I first ask if you have ever invested any sweat or equity to EVER create a job? Do you or those here with this whole "entitlement attitude" have any clue what it takes to create dignity - let alone a job? Would really like to know.

Bach wrote:We should get rid of all companies like Walmart and the jobs they create. I think Kevin has some great insight - let the govt be responsible for what "at risk capital" creates. But then I may be ignorantly assuming most here have the slightest clue about what "at risk capital" really means.

I suggest that the net effect of companies like Walmart is likely to actually reduce the number of American jobs available--especially jobs that pay a livable wage. I would bet that the number of American jobs lost due to out-sourcing overseas in order to avoid having to pay employees more than starvation wages probably exceeds the number hired by companies like Walmart.

Gunnar wrote:

Bach wrote:We should get rid of all companies like Walmart and the jobs they create. I think Kevin has some great insight - let the govt be responsible for what "at risk capital" creates. But then I may be ignorantly assuming most here have the slightest clue about what "at risk capital" really means.

I suggest that the net effect of companies like Walmart is likely to actually reduce the number of American jobs available--especially jobs that pay a livable wage. I would bet that the number of American jobs lost due to out-sourcing overseas in order to avoid having to pay employees more than starvation wages probably exceeds the number hired by companies like Walmart.

OK - So you're an angry socialist, get it! But WTF IS YOUR PLAN other than complaining about what YOU don't HAVE! This is the very problem of those seeking entitlement - they want to have their life's needs fulfilled by the effort of others! The very effort they believe Is not their responsibility.

They'd rather complain than engage.

The fact that Bach cannot concede the fact that Walmart was at fault, and instead continues on with his usual red herrings attacking Socialism, kinda proves the point that there are greedy idiots in this country who have no business running a business. Except Bach is just an idiot. I doubt he has ever run a business in his life.

Kevin Graham wrote:The fact that Bach cannot concede the fact that Walmart was at fault, and instead continues on with his usual red herrings attacking Socialism, kinda proves the point that there are greedy idiots in this country who have no business running a business. Except Bach is just an idiot. I doubt he has ever run a business in his life.

Like I've always said - go with KG for the in depth insight on most any issue. He's brilliant.

Bach wrote:

Gunnar wrote:It's like I have said before. Republican conservative rhetoric opposing and condemning "redistribution of wealth" is the purest and most blatant hypocrisy. They are fully in favor of redistribution of wealth as long as it continues in the present direction from the poorest of us to those who are already immensely wealthy. What they are really opposed to is not redistribution of wealth per se, but halting and reversing the current direction of that redistribution. With the growing and increasingly deplorable and problematic disparity between the very wealthiest and the poorest of us, reversal of the current direction of that redistribution is not just acceptable, it has become a moral imperative! The very idea that the wealthiest of us need or deserve a tax break is at the very least oxymoronic, if not downright obscene!

I'd love to hear your answers to solve what you think the problem is. But may I first ask if you have ever invested any sweat or equity to EVER create a job? Do you or those here with this whole "entitlement attitude" have any clue what it takes to create dignity - let alone a job? Would really like to know.

Yet more hypocrisy IMHO. Why to you not appose the "entitlement attitude" of wealthy corporations and individuals who lobby (all too often successfully) for tax breaks and subsidies, and then hide much of their assets in offshore accounts to minimize or even eliminate having to pay even the reduced tax obligations they have managed to get for themselves via that lobbying or bribery?

The only "entitlements" I am arguing for are the entitlement to get a decent, livable wage for an honest day's work and the entitlement to be treated fairly, compassionately and justly. Apparently, what companies like Walmart are doing, at least to an extent, is deliberately paying many of their workers less than they need to live, and cynically relying on Government welfare programs and "entitlements" to make up the difference. Wouldn't it be better to pay their employees enough to live on in the first place so they wouldn't have to apply for Government assistance and entitlements to adequately supply their needs?