texasjewboy12
 |
Sure, if they want to. But from what I hear, they get shares in the company and profit from them when the company does well (and few are doing better than Wal-mart, that's why there are so damned many of them and more springing up all the time). Old Sam Walton did what all the Jap companies did with their employees back in the day. He paid 'em low wages, but shared profits (when there were any) and they came out way ahead in the long run. |
Ben
|
This is not a question of "should". In my view, it should not even be a question, but in this day and age, there is no getting away from it.
Labor (working people) controls the means of production. Without Labor, there can be no Capital in that Labor in and of itself, without any outside assistance, can create Capital. Capital cannot create itself, nor can it induce Labor to create more Capital without Labor's collaboration. Labor is antecedent to Capital. In the beginning there was no Capital, only Labor, and it was through Labor that man attained Capital. Labor is the superior of Capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Therefore I believe, it is at Labor's, and only Labor's, discretion as whether or not to organize in its own interests and choose to share in the wealth it has created. And, it is not for any person, corporation, or government to say otherwise.
I believe this applies to anyone from the professional engineer to the guy that drives the bus. |
scasigfrd1018
 |
It varies from state to state,but in the northern states most employees already have the right to unionize. However Wal-mart is very good at union busting,and in the retail sector unions have been notoriously unable to accomplish much. all the Kroger stores in Illinois are union,but the pay and benefits are pretty identical to those at Wal-mart |
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Corporations 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
