Official CBA Negotiation Thread

[ramadon101]

If you don't take care of the people working for you, they won't take care of you. It's really that simple.

Note that taking care of them doesn't necessarily always equate to a higher salary or hourly rate, although that has to be enough for them to meet their financial needs. Money usually rates well down the list of factors that correlate the most with job satisfaction.

Do I think I deserve to earn more than they do? Without question. I take risks that they will never have to face. I do things that they cannot do. While they are responsible for their only families' welfare, I am essentially responsible for 75 families well-being, including my own. Your company is undoubtedly the same. But if I had treated my staff as fungible, highly replaceable parts I would be nowhere near where I am today.

Perhaps the biggest problem with large corporations is that their management is so far detached from the front lines that they cannot relate to the issues those workers face, or understand their relative importance to the company's success.

No doubt much of this is true. I don't "clock in, clock out" - I am 24/7 as someone in this thread already said. I have conference calls at 11 pm, 4 am, 6 pm, etc -- some days I don't sleep. I have executed dozens of M&A transactions where I've led teams of hundreds on diligence, negotiation of definitive agreements, internal reorganizations, private equity capitalizations, etc. There is no question that someone off of the general floor could not simply substitute for me on those types of transactions, as they are far outside of the ordinary course of business.

All that said, I do not think a world where I am paid 250 times one of those employees is a fair one. There's a limit to what I need or my family (or generations down) really need. My employees should not have to worry about purchasing an extra gift or two for their kids while I think about whether I want a third or fourth house in Telluride. I think anyone who thinks otherwise is just operating on greed. That's just my opinion- if others feel differently, do you.

[thethe]

No doubt much of this is true. I don't "clock in, clock out" - I am 24/7 as someone in this thread already said. I have conference calls at 11 pm, 4 am, 6 pm, etc -- some days I don't sleep. I have executed dozens of M&A transactions where I've led teams of hundreds on diligence, negotiation of definitive agreements, internal reorganizations, private equity capitalizations, etc. There is no question that someone off of the general floor could not simply substitute for me on those types of transactions, as they are far outside of the ordinary course of business.

All that said, I do not think a world where I am paid 250 times one of those employees is a fair one. There's a limit to what I need or my family (or generations down) really need. My employees should not have to worry about purchasing an extra gift or two for their kids while I think about whether I want a third or fourth house in Telluride. I think anyone who thinks otherwise is just operating on greed. That's just my opinion- if others feel differently, do you.

Your salary has no bearing on whether or not those line workers can afford another gift or two. In fact, an excellent job on your part has probably contributed to additional bonuses that has facilitated those purchases.

[MadduxFanII]

The thing with the CEO wage gap is that it's grown so dramatically over time. The CEO of General Motors in 1948 was an extraordinarily wealthy man, but he wasn't making 351 times what the average GM employee was making. It's not as though your average GM factory worker was any more equipped to do Charles Erwin Wilson's job than a floor employee at The Ramadon101 Chemical Weapons, Sex Hammock and GORP Consortium is to do ramadon's job. The difference between then and now is a massive sea change in both the underlying legal and taxation structures and the philosophies of companies and their executives.

[The Chosen One]

I made a pledge not to make 250x more than my own employees here. Thus, turnover is low and staff here are very happy.

[CyYoung31]

I made a pledge not to make 250x more than my own employees here. Thus, turnover is low and staff here are very happy.

Just 249x.

[Jaw]

I would say you earn $90-100K per annum doing your software engineering job. I may be lowballing that number. Which is insanely good relative to anywhere else in the world. You are wealthy.

You're either low balling that by a large percentage or he needs to find another employer.

And I realize you aren't going to change your mind. I think most people either get Econ or they don't. There's no arguing that's going to change their mind on a topic of this magnitude.

Understanding involves learning the words, knowledge is gained through experiences, and wisdom comes from the combination of the two providing context for one another.

Don't let your understanding hinder your knowledge and wisdom.

[thethe]

You're either low balling that by a large percentage or he needs to find another employer.

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

I'm sure he is closer to 200k than 100k thats for sure.

[Southcack77]

Granted, my personal experience working there is from years ago, but based on what I've seen first hand your statement above is false.

The average Walmart worker today earns $16.40 per hour. Not great by any standard, but you have to consider that pretty much everyone working there is unskilled, and has no formal job training.

When I worked there, they started everyone at slightly above minimum wage, but as long as you showed up most of the time and didn't do anything to get fired (steal, insult customers, show up drunk, etc), you got regular raises at 90 days, six months, one year, then annually after that. They didn't manipulate anyone's hours that I saw to keep them under full-time. Their health insurance plan was good and inexpensive...let's just say I wish I could get insurance today for roughly 4% of my income. And you only had to average 28 hours per week to be eligible for it. They added 15% to any WMT stock you bought as well. My pay went up over 30 percent in the year and a half that I was there, and while I think I was a good employee, I was no superstar by any means.

There were people I worked with at Walmart who never earned a penny over $6 per hour in their lives who retired with over half a million dollars, and this was in the early 1990s. If you showed any ambition or ability at all they were eager to promote from within. Hell, the current CEO of Walmart U.S. is the guy who was hired to replace me when I quit after college, and he's married to a lady I worked with there for nearly two years.

None of this takes into account the effects that cheap availability of products has in helping the poor. Of course that comes with a cost...buying goods produced overseas costs American factory jobs. Walmart coming into small towns forces closure of locally owned small businesses who can't compete on price, but it also enables the poor in those areas to get goods and groceries much more cheaply. There is no free lunch either way.

Personally I preferred the community of small business owners who treated employees well rather than corporate overlords paying the few people they could find who weren't on meth relatively little to pander cheap goods to folks whose only option in life is retail or some kind of low level med tech.

[Southcack77]

Just take a look at what WMT stock did from the 70s to the 90s. Then figure in that the company added 15% to every employee stock purchase. It's not hard to figure out.

Cost of living in Arkansas isn't nearly what it is in other places, and really wasn't back then. Even today, people who earn in the $15/hr range can accumulate savings if they live modestly and avoid destructive habits. I have a couple of guys working for me earning $18-$19/hr that will probably be able to retire before I do. I also have a few earning a lot more than that who will die in debt.

If you are ever on the campus of the University of Arkansas, notice the names on most of the facilities (excluding the football stadium and basketball arena). Most of those people started early with Walmart, many as stockers and cashiers, although most of them advanced into either store management or the home office. And obviously the basketball arena is named for the brother of the founder of WMT, but I don't count him as someone who started from the bottom for obvious reasons.

I was scratching a broke ass, barely able to pay rent back then, yet in a year and a half I accumulated about $3K worth of stock. After rolling it over at my next job that was seed money for the down payment on my first house a few years later. Never earned above $6.25 while working at Walmart (minimum was $4.25).

I mean congratulations. You were a young person who invested and saved and benefitted. That's not a magic spell cast by Wal-Mart though.

[clvclv]

I made a pledge not to make 250x more than my own employees here. Thus, turnover is low and staff here are very happy.

Is that information based on the Fox News poll or the CNN poll???

[DirkPiggler]

I mean congratulations. You were a young person who invested and saved and benefitted. That's not a magic spell cast by Wal-Mart though.

Not a magic spell, but it's at least anecdotal evidence that the idea of WMT oppressing its workforce is a lie. Not talking about my own example as much as all the people who did much better than I did while working there, those who made a career of it. They could've earned more in the short term working at one of the other industries in the area...trucking, poultry, etc...but ended up far better off than the people who took those routes. Most of Walmart's competitors do not, or at least did not at the time, offer similar benefits that would enable low-income workers to accumulate wealth.

I don't disagree at all regarding the impact on small businesses. The worst of it is how they strong armed vendors...that's the story that should draw their ire rather than how much they paid employees who didn't have a whole lot of better options.

Here's how that process worked (I assume it still does to a point). Walmart finds a local manufacturer, say for instance someone who produces straws, and tells him they will buy a billion units per year if he can sell them at X price when the producer's current capacity is maybe a tenth or less of that number. Producer invests in capital to make this work, and has a profitable year or two. Once he's shown he can meet the demand on time, Walmart tells him they want to buy ten billion units instead of one billion at the current price. Vendor invests more capital and once again fills the order for a year or two. After this, WMT comes to the vendor and tells him they have a vendor in China who will produce the same number and quality of straws for 1/3 the price. They offer to allow the current vendor to keep the contract if he will match the price.

At this point the vendor has a decision to make. He's still paying on loans he took out for new facilities and equipment, so his fixed costs are fairly high. If he loses the WMT contract he has zero chance of paying off these debts. If he keeps it, he has no way of covering his variable costs...he's essentially just working to cover his fixed costs (if he's lucky). His options are basically to work for free, earning no profit but maintaining his creditworthiness, or to go bankrupt. It's a shït sandwich either way.

I'll end my participation in the thread derail with this. I'm not a defender or apologist for Walmart. The only time I shop there is if they have something I can't find elsewhere, or something I need in a hurry while other options are not open. That's not a moral stance as much as it is a statement to my preference for convenience. They, like any other large business entity, have more than their share of flaws and negative effects on the economy at large. My only purpose in getting into this discussion was to dispel some of the information promulgated by labor organizations and others with a vested interest in seeing Walmart fail, or at least to show that there is another side to the story that is less nefarious than those entities would have you believe. As with just about any subject, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.

[sturg33]

Not a magic spell, but it's at least anecdotal evidence that the idea of WMT oppressing its workforce is a lie. Not talking about my own example as much as all the people who did much better than I did while working there, those who made a career of it. They could've earned more in the short term working at one of the other industries in the area...trucking, poultry, etc...but ended up far better off than the people who took those routes. Most of Walmart's competitors do not, or at least did not at the time, offer similar benefits that would enable low-income workers to accumulate wealth.

I don't disagree at all regarding the impact on small businesses. The worst of it is how they strong armed vendors...that's the story that should draw their ire rather than how much they paid employees who didn't have a whole lot of better options.

Here's how that process worked (I assume it still does to a point). Walmart finds a local manufacturer, say for instance someone who produces straws, and tells him they will buy a billion units per year if he can sell them at X price when the producer's current capacity is maybe a tenth or less of that number. Producer invests in capital to make this work, and has a profitable year or two. Once he's shown he can meet the demand on time, Walmart tells him they want to buy ten billion units instead of one billion at the current price. Vendor invests more capital and once again fills the order for a year or two. After this, WMT comes to the vendor and tells him they have a vendor in China who will produce the same number and quality of straws for 1/3 the price. They offer to allow the current vendor to keep the contract if he will match the price.

At this point the vendor has a decision to make. He's still paying on loans he took out for new facilities and equipment, so his fixed costs are fairly high. If he loses the WMT contract he has zero chance of paying off these debts. If he keeps it, he has no way of covering his variable costs...he's essentially just working to cover his fixed costs (if he's lucky). His options are basically to work for free, earning no profit but maintaining his creditworthiness, or to go bankrupt. It's a shït sandwich either way.

I'll end my participation in the thread derail with this. I'm not a defender or apologist for Walmart. The only time I shop there is if they have something I can't find elsewhere, or something I need in a hurry while other options are not open. That's not a moral stance as much as it is a statement to my preference for convenience. They, like any other large business entity, have more than their share of flaws and negative effects on the economy at large. My only purpose in getting into this discussion was to dispel some of the information promulgated by labor organizations and others with a vested interest in seeing Walmart fail, or at least to show that there is another side to the story that is less nefarious than those entities would have you believe. As with just about any subject, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.

This.

I have sold to Walmart and consulted for Walmart. Where they really hurt American companies is their wholesale buying. They have so much power in that space and can essentially name their price. Losing a Walmart contract can sink a small business... hell, it can sink a major corporation.

They treat their employees pretty good if you ask me. As you said... if you show up and don't **** up, you'll probably be a team leader within a year. They give employment opportunities to people who probably can't find it anywhere else. And, last I checked, they offer to pay for any employees tuition.

[goldfly]

Lol

[Russ2dollas]

I don't like how this is going. I worry MLB wants to cancel some games. They appear very focused on playoffs brining in more revenue and not caring about the regular season.

[Slippyjms]

I don't like how this is going. I worry MLB wants to cancel some games. They appear very focused on playoffs brining in more revenue and not caring about the regular season.

MLB doesn’t want to cancel games. It’s just the holiday season so MLB and the Union are just handling the opening rounds before getting to the big stuff in the new year

[striker42]

MLB doesn’t want to cancel games. It’s just the holiday season so MLB and the Union are just handling the opening rounds before getting to the big stuff in the new year

I'm hoping this is the case. This time of year is usually completely dead. Execs and players take vacations and not much gets done before the new year. Neither the players nor the union wants to see games cancelled. That gives them 6 to maybe 8 weeks after the new year to strike a deal.

[Slippyjms]

I'm hoping this is the case. This time of year is usually completely dead. Execs and players take vacations and not much gets done before the new year. Neither the players nor the union wants to see games cancelled. That gives them 6 to maybe 8 weeks after the new year to strike a deal.

And it isn’t like they haven’t been doing anything. The 2 sides have already been having talks on PED policies, scheduling, grievance procedures, the domestic violence policy.

It’s smaller stuff but stuff that needs to be worked out nonetheless.

[Hudson2]

I don’t think there will be a work stoppage. We’ve seen a lot of money thrown around already this offseason.

[NYCBrave]

I saw a comment a few weeks ago from Bryce Harper who is part of the players representation. He said he wasn't worried because they could simply just extend the current contract by another year if no deal is reached. So that's what I believe might happen.

[Hulavol]

I saw a comment a few weeks ago from Bryce Harper who is part of the players representation. He said he wasn't worried because they could simply just extend the current contract by another year if no deal is reached. So that's what I believe might happen.

This