Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:04 PM Feb 2016

*Honest* question for Hillary supporters:

Scout's honor, this is a super sincere and innocent question.

How come Hillary tacitly supported union busting for SIX freakin' years as she sat on Wal-Mart's board?


<snip>

Of course, then, as now, Walmart’s biggest cost was labor. And to keep labor costs in check, Wal-Mart took pains to make sure its workers didn't unionize. During Clinton’s tenure, the company’s strategy for dealing with organized labor was directed by fellow board member, John Tate. Mr. Tate famously summed up his philosophy at a 2004 managers meeting: "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living.”

According to former board members, Clinton did not denounce the ‘anti-union’ efforts Tate spearheaded, nor rail for increased employee wages. Donald G. Soderquist, the board’s then vice chairman, has said that not only was Clinton “not a dissenter,” but that “she was a part of those decisions.” Wal-Mart’s stock rose by more than 500% during her tenure and Clinton’s shares were worth nearly $100,000 by 1992.


<snip>


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/22/hillary-clinton-wal-mart-minimum-wage-layoffs-store-closures-column/80225734/

59 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
*Honest* question for Hillary supporters: (Original Post) cali Feb 2016 OP
She currently supports increasing outsourcing, and increased H1B visas also..... peacebird Feb 2016 #1
At least she is consistent on two things H1b and Walmart union busting which counts in my mind (1 Dragonfli Feb 2016 #4
What? No Hillary fans want to answer cali Feb 2016 #2
My guess is that 95% or so have you on ignore. PeaceNikki Feb 2016 #3
Of course they do. Hillary supporters are such sensitive types cali Feb 2016 #5
And yours at least comes off as amusing, whereas theirs come of as simply desperate /nt Dragonfli Feb 2016 #7
Whatever, Cali. PeaceNikki Feb 2016 #11
Lol. cali Feb 2016 #12
There's been a lot of that going on today. arcane1 Feb 2016 #54
Does it really not matter? Matariki Feb 2016 #46
Is Bravenak off tonight? n/t Liberal Jesus Freak Feb 2016 #48
'Scout's honor' pangaia Feb 2016 #27
Why thanks, pan cali Feb 2016 #36
And thats why you are great...................... turbinetree Feb 2016 #45
It's amusing that your post first insults Clinton supporters and then claims intellectual honesty mythology Feb 2016 #57
Not challenging a fellow member of the board does not equal support. oasis Feb 2016 #15
Try reading the 2nd paragraph of the excerpt this time. (nt) jeff47 Feb 2016 #17
Great. Now try reading MY second paragraph. n/t oasis Feb 2016 #18
Right after you correct your error. (nt) jeff47 Feb 2016 #19
No need. Unions support Hillary. Case closed. oasis Feb 2016 #21
Nope. Their willingness to overlook her record does not correct your error. (nt) jeff47 Feb 2016 #22
How do you reconcile the members support of Bernie over who their leaders are supporting? Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #25
Again, ancient history. Not everyone is obsessed with Hillary's oasis Feb 2016 #30
It's not ancient history and she is in a highly competitive race. Your response does Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #32
Unions will mobilize their members for Hillary in the GE. oasis Feb 2016 #38
I wouldn't count on it. We have lost too many seats to count on that argument any longer. n/t Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #39
Sorry --------------but some of us are----------------- with her record........................ turbinetree Feb 2016 #50
The leaders do. But when rank and file members are allowed to voice their preferences, tblue37 Feb 2016 #53
They all have their heads up their asses. Cobalt Violet Feb 2016 #55
sounds like you want to discuss ISSUES... I'm sure they'll get right on that yourpaljoey Feb 2016 #6
They would if they could! but unfortunately they all have doctors notes that say: Dragonfli Feb 2016 #9
There is no memo to answer that, only memos to ignore mention of it n/t arcane1 Feb 2016 #8
Clintonians can't answer this b/c there's no good answer nashville_brook Feb 2016 #10
I enjoy calling them out on their endless attacks tarted up cali Feb 2016 #13
Or Turd-Way, as we know it. nt valerief Feb 2016 #28
Great question. Looks to me like their feelings about Clinton & union workers being busted is Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #14
Kick. Why won't Hillarians answer an honest question??? cali Feb 2016 #16
They're looking into it cyberswede Feb 2016 #20
... CharlotteVale Feb 2016 #23
Cut it out! cyberswede Feb 2016 #24
DUzy!!!! valerief Feb 2016 #29
...... cali Feb 2016 #33
The lines have been drawn. Divisions are clear. nt thereismore Feb 2016 #26
I worked at Wal-Mart for two weeks when I was in my early 20's. TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #31
The lab techs might have been heads. Wilms Feb 2016 #34
Most likely. TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #37
Probably figured anyone who willingly worked there had to be stoned. Just one of the dudes. n/t sarge43 Feb 2016 #51
I am almost certain that Mike__M Feb 2016 #35
Better question. Who the fuck would be on Walmart's board of directors? Hissyspit Feb 2016 #40
"Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who Dont call me Shirley Feb 2016 #41
And Hillary had no problem with that union busting dog shit. cali Feb 2016 #42
One would conclude simply being on the waltons board would make one a union hater/buster. Dont call me Shirley Feb 2016 #43
Maybe not, but the evidence in her case, makes it clear cali Feb 2016 #44
Lol. We need to have an 'honest question' hour Matariki Feb 2016 #47
Ok... FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #49
Since she sat on the board Eko Feb 2016 #52
All that really matters now is if any Wal-Mart issues would hurt her in the GE. great white snark Feb 2016 #56
Did you read the opinion piece? Kang Colby Feb 2016 #58
Did anyone ever respond, Cali? closeupready Apr 2016 #59

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
4. At least she is consistent on two things H1b and Walmart union busting which counts in my mind (1
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:21 PM
Feb 2016

(2 support for bush doctrine preemptive wars and strikes as well as Regime Change supporting dictators, bloody evil ones, or run of the mill military narcissistic ones, as long as they do whatever a corporation or corporations want.


If she gets to (3

she will finally have the beginnings of an actual consistent full PLATFORM rather than a couple things she appears consistent on.


I'd say good for her! Except the things she favors consistently I consider evil.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
5. Of course they do. Hillary supporters are such sensitive types
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:22 PM
Feb 2016

You do understand, I trust, that my op is nothing but a riff on the patently dishonest "questions" (rhetorical attacks) that are posted by Hillary fans every day.

At least I'm intellectually honest. I don't see much of that with her supporters here.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
54. There's been a lot of that going on today.
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:03 PM
Feb 2016

The memos can't come out fast enough to keep up.

Matariki

(18,775 posts)
46. Does it really not matter?
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:45 PM
Feb 2016

Presiding over union busting and low wages? It really doesn't matter?

Is it because it was in the past? And if that's why it doesn't matter to her supporters, what exactly is an acceptable cut off point for you?

Or do her supporters not care about low wages and unions?

turbinetree

(24,577 posts)
45. And thats why you are great......................
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:43 PM
Feb 2016

ask a simple question for the simple answer --------------

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
57. It's amusing that your post first insults Clinton supporters and then claims intellectual honesty
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:41 PM
Feb 2016

Those two things are mutually exclusive.

As Socrates put it, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

So congrats on what you consider a big victory or some sort of uber cool snark smackdown of Clinton supporters. Because if that's all you've got, then I suppose celebrate it. But to have to try to belittle and insult people just because they have the temerity to disagree with you, that's just sad.

oasis

(49,046 posts)
15. Not challenging a fellow member of the board does not equal support.
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:58 PM
Feb 2016

Besides, the important thing is, many national unions support her now. They obviously are willing to chalk up her past association with Walmart as ancient history.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
25. How do you reconcile the members support of Bernie over who their leaders are supporting?
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:43 PM
Feb 2016

It appears they most definitely are not in agreement and her record is likely
the reason why. Do you feel her record with WalMart is not problematic
to her claims of supporting unions?

oasis

(49,046 posts)
30. Again, ancient history. Not everyone is obsessed with Hillary's
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:48 PM
Feb 2016

past. The stakes TODAY are just too high.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
32. It's not ancient history and she is in a highly competitive race. Your response does
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:01 PM
Feb 2016

not address the fact there is a disconnect between the members and their leadership.
If you are saying the leadership is supporting her b/c she will be the likely winner
than please state that..it appears that is what your meaning is with "stakes are too high."

Her record is not a confidence builder and it is another view into her very low trustworthy
ratings. What I see is a pattern and that pattern results with Democrats losing more and
more seats across the country, they don't believe their votes count for much and don't
bother voting.

oasis

(49,046 posts)
38. Unions will mobilize their members for Hillary in the GE.
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:12 PM
Feb 2016

They know for certain a GOP victory will further diminish their numbers.

turbinetree

(24,577 posts)
50. Sorry --------------but some of us are----------------- with her record........................
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:56 PM
Feb 2016

look no further than on "trade deals".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511254768

tblue37

(64,632 posts)
53. The leaders do. But when rank and file members are allowed to voice their preferences,
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:02 PM
Feb 2016

they overwhelmingly support Bernie.

One reason why people were so easily turned against unions by the corporatists was tha union leaders, once they got a taste of power, were susceptible to corruption. They were easily coopted by TPTB, the very ones the union was supposed to work against.

I think union leaders, even today, know which side the bread is buttered on.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
9. They would if they could! but unfortunately they all have doctors notes that say:
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:31 PM
Feb 2016

They're allergic to issue discussions and that such discussion may cause a severe rash or even a red swelling of the face requiring an epipen be used immediately before going to the hospital.

Poor dears, I think it is that sensitivity issue spoken of upthread.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
10. Clintonians can't answer this b/c there's no good answer
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:33 PM
Feb 2016

Hillary is in the bag for lower wages, off-shoring jobs with bad trade deals, and making life easier for Wall Street donors.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
13. I enjoy calling them out on their endless attacks tarted up
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:49 PM
Feb 2016

as questions. Then they run back to their safe space Hill cave to complain that Bernie supporters won't answer their bullshit faux questions.

They are so transparent.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
14. Great question. Looks to me like their feelings about Clinton & union workers being busted is
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:51 PM
Feb 2016

to say, WHATEVER.

Why in the hell her past record is over looked and they expect a different
outcome this time is beyond me.

TIME TO PANIC

(1,894 posts)
31. I worked at Wal-Mart for two weeks when I was in my early 20's.
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:54 PM
Feb 2016

They made me watch anti-union videos during my job orientation. I still don't know how I passed the drug screening.

Mike__M

(1,052 posts)
35. I am almost certain that
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:04 PM
Feb 2016

Your concerns about her boardroom decisions will be put to rest as soon she releases the Wall Street speech transcripts.

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)
41. "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:34 PM
Feb 2016

work for a living.”

What an Orwellian statement. The bloodsucking parasites are the Walton heirs.

Matariki

(18,775 posts)
47. Lol. We need to have an 'honest question' hour
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:45 PM
Feb 2016

Maybe a whole day!

But in truth, I think what you are asking is actually a good question. I would love to know why Clinton supporters are willing to overlook this. I really would.

FrenchieCat

(68,867 posts)
49. Ok...
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:49 PM
Feb 2016

Of course, Wal-Mart is always a good target going back to the 1990s
and IF a candidate has ties to the giant,
it plays well to mention it in a Primary. Evidently, someone got the memo!

So let's take another look at Hillary’s connection to Wal-Mart:

According to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices, board colleagues and company executives noted. She made limited progress in both areas, but she never voiced any objections to the company’s anti-union stand, they said.

But in 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution to her campaign from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

Would this information so strongly parroted in DU hurt Hillary Clinton in a general election? NO
Is it hurting her with Unions now? NOT PARTICULARLY
Is the aim of primaries to end up winning the General Election? YES
Is there any candidate pure as the driven snow throughout their entire lifetime? NO
Are there issues that either candidates running in the primaries may have that the Right will attack? YES
Is this one of them? NO
Is Hillary evil incarnated? NO
Is the fact that Hillary Supporters would rather not participate in this inquest a crime? NO
Is there a reason they would prefer not to? YES
Is that reason that they know that if one does not support Bernie Sanders, and one tries to say anything positive about Hillary Clinton, they will be torn to shreds, no matter how they respond? YES
Is it starting to feel like authoritarian rule in the clubhouse? POSSIBLY....depends who you ask.

“Let me talk about myself and I’ll let Sen. Sanders talk about himself,” she said. “Our real differences are with the Republicans.”


Eko

(7,050 posts)
52. Since she sat on the board
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:00 PM
Feb 2016

I would think she voted,, and you have her voting record for that correct?

great white snark

(2,646 posts)
56. All that really matters now is if any Wal-Mart issues would hurt her in the GE.
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:08 PM
Feb 2016

Since Wal-Mart is a sacred cow to Republicans I'd say no.

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
58. Did you read the opinion piece?
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:04 PM
Feb 2016

Because your question is answered at the top of the article. Essentially, Hillary understands that a 65% increase in minimum wage would put a lot of workers out of a job. Hillary understands basic economics and presents real world solutions.

I'm surprised a Bernie supporter would post an article like this, because if you read it you'll notice the article explains that Hillary has had to dumb down her proposals due to the fact Sanders continues to pitch bizarre and unrealistic economic plans.

Sanders thinks companies are going offshore to avoid taxes, so his plan is to raise taxes to bring the companies back and keep more of them from going overseas. LOL....you can't make that up.

Sanders says we need paid family leave (I agree), but his plans would bankrupt our employers which would end up providing 52 weeks of unpaid leave per year.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
59. Did anyone ever respond, Cali?
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:25 PM
Apr 2016

This was a good question, and New York is a state with strong unions, so it's a timely one.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»*Honest* question for Hil...