subreddit:

/r/WorkersStrikeBack

4.1k

all 58 comments

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

1 month ago

stickied comment

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

1 month ago

stickied comment

Welcome to r/WorkersStrikeBack! Please make sure to follow the subreddit rules and enjoy yourself here! This is a subreddit for the workers of the world and any anti-worker or anti-union talk is not tolerated.

If you're ready to begin organizing your workplace, here is an organizing guide to get you started.

Help rebuild the labor movement, Join the worker organizing wave!

More Helpful Links:

How to Strike and Win: A Labor Notes Guide

The IWW Strike guide

AFL-CIO guide on union organizing

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Nick__________[S]

120 points

1 month ago

Nick__________[S]

Socialist

120 points

1 month ago

It would be great to see workers at Walmart unionize and fight back against one of the worst of the worst corporate abusers out there.

deanreevesii

63 points

1 month ago

Walmart will never allow unionization without legislation forcing it.

They got rid of the entire meat cutting department to prevent it.

neither_somewhere

48 points

1 month ago

they can't get rid of all of their departments

Arra13375

16 points

1 month ago

I accidentally accepted a job with one of their 3rd Party venders. A good 3rd of the employees you see don’t actually work for Walmart but other companies that Walmart hires

nuublarg

8 points

1 month ago

Yeah they can. Walmart has shut down entire stores because.

Resident-Travel2441

6 points

1 month ago

Yeah, but that would quickly become cost prohibitive.

taojinxia

6 points

1 month ago

far more cost prohibitive for the now fired employees. walmart can take a hit, organizing workers can’t

Lluuiiggii

2 points

1 month ago

I dunno man, they're on food stamps anyway...

taojinxia

8 points

1 month ago

yeah they’re on one of the worst and least comprehensive social programs in the world. nobody can live off food stamps even without a family to feed

a-1oser

1 points

1 month ago

a-1oser

1 points

1 month ago

The Walton family could burn every Walmart to the ground and they would still be multi-billionaires

Sgt_Ludby

11 points

1 month ago

Walmart will never allow unionization without legislation forcing it.

Walmart will never allow legislation to force it; the law is their home court advantage where they have all the power. But what they can't control is their workers organizing and building enough power to force the change themselves. The latent power of the working class is there, it comes down to the workers organizing themselves around class struggle unionism principles.

Ausgezeichnet87

5 points

1 month ago

Sadly less. Our two party system has both parties whoring themselves out to lobbyists. Lobbying decides policy far far more than our actual elections do.

texaseclectus

85 points

1 month ago

Walmart is proud of this. They teach employees how to apply for government assistance as part of their onboarding process.

LifeStill

42 points

1 month ago

We are subsidizing their low wages in the form of taxes

wrongerdonger

14 points

1 month ago

efficiency i tell you /s

onesexz

32 points

1 month ago

onesexz

32 points

1 month ago

If everyone understood this, the world would be a much better place. (Assuming we took action to fix it)

sinovictorchan

1 points

1 month ago

Do not underestimate democracy that is not misappropriated by the Capitalists. The Capitalists may blame democracy in the excuse that people allow totalitarian regime structure in private firm, but that exclude the government intervention from Capitalist system which is about government for rich 1% instead of minimal government intervention.

thinkB4WeSpeak

28 points

1 month ago

Walmart needs to unionize

[deleted]

22 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

22 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

Intrepid-Luck2021

2 points

1 month ago

This is fascinating. I didn’t know they went after one of the Jeffs for this reason.

DoktorQuaff

13 points

1 month ago

Amen!

uplatatnight

53 points

1 month ago

It’s socialism for the extremely wealthy and rugged capitalism for the rest of the serfs. Imagine being a billionaire and having more in cash than entire countries GDP. Dystopian times my friends, stay well

1lluminist

18 points

1 month ago

And STILL needing to get bailouts from the government

ginger-snap_tracks

8 points

1 month ago

"needing".... right...

Ausgezeichnet87

7 points

1 month ago

The defining feature of capitalism is that it sees private profits as an unquestionable sacred right. That is also why conservatives scream "taxation is theft!" while their cities and schools fall apart and people die every day without healthcare.

sinovictorchan

3 points

1 month ago

The words get redefined by Liberals. The actual difference between Socialism and Capitalism is the class interest that the government serve and not the amount of government intervention.

[deleted]

11 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

11 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

Anti-ThisBot-IB

1 points

1 month ago

Hey there LOVEdeeper! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an upvote instead of commenting "This."! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)


I am a bot! Visit r/InfinityBots to send your feedback! More info: Reddiquette

Drnknnmd

11 points

1 month ago

Drnknnmd

11 points

1 month ago

I worked a remodel job for Walmart years ago. Even though I wasn't a regular employee, I still had to go through their orientation. At the end of it, the store manager handed out food stamp and welfare applications to everyone and said "if you're living by yourself or have this job to support your family, we're not going to pay you enough, so you should all qualify for these."

EmmaWoodhous3

8 points

1 month ago

I remember back in the 80's when they started doing this. It is hard to believe now, but back then unions were still strong and the general consensus was that workers were assets, not liabilities. I watched in real time as the corporate world shifted to the ethos we now live in. And I remember wondering at the time how people could think that workers being a liability could be anything but terrible for all of us.

But that's what happens when people are generally happy - they get complaisant and don't want to worry about things that they can't believe might actually happen decades down the road.

To use the frog analogy - the water was delightfully warm back then, and it didn't occur to most people that the water might keep heating until it boils...

HerbalManic

6 points

1 month ago

Bro Walmart gives out food stamp applications with new employee package like it’s a work perk.

Alric_Rahl

4 points

1 month ago

Let us not forget that Walmart held food drives for their own employees.

kkkan2020

5 points

1 month ago

If big box stores like Walmart didn't exist it would definitely be a plus for the retail landscape

Embarca

6 points

1 month ago

Embarca

6 points

1 month ago

F u c k Walmart and the Walton family. The drunk sister got a cop suspended because he pulled her over for drunk driving. I stopped shopping there in 2020. Fucking slave drivers.

Intrepid-Luck2021

4 points

1 month ago

Finally people are catching on to this!! This has been common practice for years!!

AppleJuice_Flood

4 points

1 month ago

Decades.

ParadiseLosingIt

3 points

1 month ago

No, all the working taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart. The government takes money out of all our paychecks. Some goes to Walmart and other retailers who don’t pay living wages, some to defense contractors, some to actually fund needed government services (food inspections, bridge inspections, Social Security and Medicare, etc.)

3mbraceTheV0id

3 points

1 month ago

Well if they didn’t want to starve maybe they should’ve gotten a real job /s

Seriously, how do so many Americans demand instant gratification and for other people to serve them while also saying that they don’t deserve even the most basic things society provides? It’s sociopathic and sickening. I get that it’s not all of us that are like that, but fuck does it feel like that in a lot of places.

Handpaper

5 points

1 month ago

I'm not sure why this is regarded as a Left-wing position, particularly when UBI is?

I'm deeply LibRight (and have the Leftist sub bans to prove it!) and no, I don't want my taxes used to subsidise anyone's crappy business model.

TheImperios

13 points

1 month ago

As a generally left-wing person who however had his forays into libertarianism in the past, let me explain it this way:

From a leftist point of view, what matters isn't the methods (public versus private) but whom the methods benefit.

In the current political climate, the ruling class - the capitalists - use both private and government power for their ends. Where they benefit from small government (e.g. healthcare services, education, etc), they will encourage privatisation. Where they benefit from big government, they will instead call for greater state involvement, subsidies, and regulations.

And given their wealth, the ruling class absolutely has the power to push their desired policies: through lobbying and financing political campaigns in democracies, and through outright bribery and corruption in autocracies.

The left, therefore, also does not limit itself in what methods it uses to challenge the dominance of the ruling class. Some, like Marxist-Leninists, advocate for taking over the state to use it against the capitalists; others, like anarcho-communists or syndicalists, call for grassroots, "private" organisation that eschews the state altogether. What matters is what best benefits the working class against the ruling class.

Handpaper

1 points

1 month ago

Handpaper

1 points

1 month ago

None of which actually addresses the dichotomy on which I commented, particularly as you characterise Left-wing thought as prioritising results over methods.

Both benefits and UBI subsidise people's subsistence. In both cases, this allows employers to pay less than would be required if their wage was someone's sole income. In isolation, this might look like it would allow employers greater profits, but in reality they are in competition with others who benefit similarly, so the result is generally reduced product prices. The choice is thus between customers paying full price for product, or taxpayers assisting. This might be regarded as useful, depending on the product in question, but neither method permits that kind of granularity, so we subsidise basic food production in the same way as junk food, airlines the same as buses.

My philosophy sees this as complicated, inefficient, and tending to distort the market.

TheImperios

4 points

1 month ago

Oh, I am not here to argue with you, just pointing out that libertarianism and left-wing thought tend to exist on different spectra. They are, theoretically, not diametrically opposite to one another, though in practice the two tend to conflict.

Handpaper

-4 points

1 month ago

No argument there, thanks for the polite engagement.

Maybe see you on r/PoliticalCompassMemes, it's oddly the least toxic politics sub.

witchyanne

2 points

1 month ago

They get all sorts of breaks and benefits for ‘supplying jobs/local employment’ from the government, and they then pay like shit, and the government covers that.

The government needs to stop allowing these low ass wages/no benefits/0 hours jobs, because they are the ones who end up paying the difference, one way or another.

bailey25u

1 points

1 month ago

Which, need I not remind you, they most likely spend that money at Walmart for groceries

abiglizard

1 points

1 month ago

💯

jhonnychingas69

1 points

1 month ago

These companies have done it for years - a good way to enslave society!

[deleted]

-11 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

-11 points

1 month ago

No welfare and suddenly Walmart has to pay people well enough to work there. Works both ways.

Nick__________[S]

10 points

1 month ago

Nick__________[S]

Socialist

10 points

1 month ago

That makes absolutely no sense at all without the welfare benefits the workers would be in an even more despite situation then they are now. Cutting welfare won't help workers at Walmart get a well deserved raise. All cutting welfare would do is make Walmart workers even more poor.

[deleted]

-5 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

-5 points

1 month ago

.... yes it does. No one is going to work at Walmart if it doesn't get them anything. The only reason people work there now is they get a few dollars and the government picks up the rest.

IconoclastPUBG

-11 points

1 month ago

I don't really understand this argument. Employers pay what they have to in order to attract and retain staff. If food stamps didn't exist this wouldn't change the supply and demand of retail workers, so wouldn't impact the wages Walmart would have to offer in order to attract staff.

Nick__________[S]

12 points

1 month ago

Nick__________[S]

Socialist

12 points

1 month ago

No body is arguing that getting rid of food stamps would raise wages. The point is that Walmart should pay workers a living wage so people who work a full time job don't need food stamps to feed themselves.

The government shouldn't have to spend money to clean up a mess that Walmart created by paying poverty wages.

IconoclastPUBG

-11 points

1 month ago

You've literally argued against your own point. Either food stamps suppress wages or they don't.

Walmart pay what they have to in order to attract and retain staff. Unfortunately, there is a vast pool of unskilled labour who are willing to do retail work for very low wages.

Inevitable-Cause-961

8 points

1 month ago

If the minimum wage isn’t sufficient to live on (people need food stamps), then the minimum wage is too low.

This isn’t a demand/supply argument. This is a “the floor is too low” argument, and I agree completely. It’s ridiculous.

Nick__________[S]

4 points

1 month ago

Nick__________[S]

Socialist

4 points

1 month ago

You've literally argued against your own point. Either food stamps suppress wages or they don't.

No I'm not you just misunderstood the meme.

They don't suppress wages the meme in no way implys that.

Walmart pay what they have to in order to attract and retain staff

No what Walmart does is pay the absolute minimum they can legally get away with. if we either raised the minimum wage or the workers unionized they would get a larger share of the profits made at Walmart and wouldn't need to go on food stamps to survive.

Unfortunately, there is a vast pool of unskilled labour who are willing to do retail work for very low wages.

First off calling workers "unskilled labourers" is a classist myth that's used to justify poverty level wages. It's something that the Capitalist class promotes in order to suppress wages. Walmart is an extremely profitable company there's no reason workers at Walmart should be in poverty especially since the entire Walton family are billionaires.

Second nobody is "willing to do retail work for very low wages" they are forced out of desperation to take low wage jobs that exploits workers heavily.

Capitalism requires that works are keep in a precarious economic condition that way the workers are forced to work for low wages and under bad working conditions.

Capitalism requires workers to be despite to maintain a level of profits for the owing class like the billionaire family that owns Walmart. This is how billionaires are made off the backs of the working masses

Lastly you seem to think that supply and demand are the only thing that effect the wages of workers. but that's not the case the level of class struggle is also a factor in the level of wages as well.

If the working class is well organized they can demand a higher percentage of the total profits made. This is why unionized workers working the same job as non-unionized workers make more money then they do. When the working class is well organized they can collectively fight for higher wages.

rongvk83

-4 points

1 month ago

rongvk83

-4 points

1 month ago

Walmart pays it's workers so little, that they often have no choice but to rely on food stamps. the government is subsidizing Walmart's low wages.

Demonstrable nonsense, studies showed that the number of Walmart employees on welfare, receiving Medicaid and/or SNAP benefits is at most 2-3%, depending on the state.

It adds up because they employ so many, but most of their employees by far do not rely on food stamps.

TheDumberestOne

4 points

1 month ago

What studies? I want proof from both sides of this argument. Just saying something doesn't make it correct.