Yesterday I received an email article from the WSJ, evening wrap, titled "Wal-Mart Sells Itself". I can't link to some page but will just give you the key points.
As most might already know there has been an onslaught of attacks and lawsuits. "Its reputation under steady assault, the world's biggest retailer stepped up its campaign to sell its own name." - WSJ
In earlier posts I've brought this up with my own thoughts of how I believed it was all union-related because Wal-Mart wishes to have their employees independent - free from any strong-arm unions. Do you think Wal-Mart would have got as big as they have without happy employees? Unions hate Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart can offer better prices and they have an overall lower overhead. No one is forced to work at a Wal-Mart and any employee that would rather have a union control their destiny is free to leave the employment of Wal-Mart and go to work at a union store.
Also - "The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, who has so far failed to organize Wal-Mart workers, planned to spend the two days criticizing the company." - WSJ. The attacks from the strong-arm unions are especially strong when Wal-Mart tries to build their superstores and expand an existing store to include their superstore offerings - mainly grocery items. The unions hate this because consumers would be offered the very same items the union store carries at a lower price. Unions hate competition - they prefer to control - and that control extends into your family budget. The attacks they spawn are not so obviously union and usually are coated with the appearance of concern that Wal-Mart is a threat for the small family business.
I'm for free enterprise - unions are against it. I'm for freedom of choice - and unions are against that. I'm for competition - unions are against that. I'm for strong business since a strong and growing business brings even more jobs - unions are against it. I know some of my readers are union workers - it that bad? No - you probably don't have a choice since you were forced to join the union if you wanted to work where you do. Just remember the millions and millions (more like billions) of dollars paid across the country in union dues. Someone's getting rich for sure - is it you?
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Wow, well, I'm for fair and equal treatment of laborers. I'm for people being paid for overtime. I'm for safe working conditions.
Maybe if you're lucky they'll open an Walmart across the street from your house. Then you can work "full time" to be below the poverty line.
If any employee, Wal-Mart or other, feels they are underpaid and working below the poverty line then they should leave that employer and take their valuable skills to an employer that will pay them the higher salary they are worth.
Like I said in the post - no one is force to work there or anywhere they don't want to work (at least legal citizens in this country). No company - Wal-Mart or any other company, should be forced to compensate workers more than the assets that they bring to a company. It's easy really - if a person does not have adaquate assests there are plenty of schools where they can better themselves.
People make choices, and some choose to stay at the level of low worth. No company should be forced by any union to pay these people as much or more than others that are trying to better themselves. If a worker wants better medical then they should quit their job and go to an employer that offers better medical. Oops - that other company had to shut down because the union drove their company out of business because they couldn't remain competitive. (If you're a steel worker you know what I'm talking about.)
Well put pundit. "Site Author"just represents the labor-love'n leftwing extremist that, when the truth is available, rather turn to name calling, threats, lies, etc. You, on the other hand, present facts - so thank you.
I actually invite posters like "Site Author" - they let the good people see the contrast between facts and fiction. And to "Site Author" - yes, I'd hope that (in your words, Wal-mart is a profit-generating machine. Companies will not hire more workers if they are not profitable. Please consider taking just one business/economics class? I know it goes against the union philosophy for a company to make a profit - too bad! Try creating your own business, and make sure you invite the union in - see how long you last. BTW, I did go to your site - an obvious waste of bandwidth with the usual hate-everything, hate-everyone crap. I'd invite other readers to go there as well and see for yourself the typical whiner full of hate because he chooses to NOT make a better life for himself. Don't just take my word for it.
unions are nothing more than thuggish collections of goons who extort businesses for more money, and keep out competition.
Oh thank you again "Site Author" for again proving my point. So much text with nothing to say except call names, make very wrong accusatoins (I'm an independent, not Republican), etc. My readers know your type - most of them are more intelligent that you wish to admit.
Thanks again, and feel free to puke here anytime you want - I love it, really!
Wow, an Independent? You'd never imagine that with links like "Bring 'em on" (didn't this work out badly the first time, cowboy?), "Anyone but Hillary" and my personal favorite "Stop the ACLU"?
Here're some actual facts for you to refute, when you finally reverse your cranio-sacral inversion.
Wal-Mart sales clerks made an average of $8.23 an hour—or $13,861 a year—in 2001. That's nearly $800 below the federal poverty line for a family of three. (Source: Business Week)
In Georgia, Wal-Mart employees are six times more likely to rely on state-provided health care for their children than are employees of any other large company. (Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
Reliance on public assistance programs in California by Wal-Mart workers costs the state's taxpayers an estimated $86 million annually. (Source: UC Berkeley Study)
Want more? You bet!
http://factchecker.purpleocean.org/answer/f1f2fc8dd839a1f191378589acb521ae
Yes, believe it or not the topics you mention from my previous posts are not exclusive to Republicans - sorry.
No refutes - just facts:
Wal-Mart sales clerks made an average of $8.23 an hour - so what? They choose to work there, no one made them. If they stay there at that wage they do so of their own free will. That wage should be plenty of incentive to get into some training for a better job, right? Sorry - peoples choices are not the problem of some company. Please also check pundit's post above for actual data on Wal-Mart employees and not the union rag.
In Georgia, Wal-Mart employees ... - same response as above. All you did was to affim that Wal-Mart employs a huge number of people - more than I think they should (like do they really need those greeters at the door?).
As far as the URL you provide - sorry, but that is just a pro-union (socialist) website (member of the SEIU - Service Employees Internation Union), so I hardly think they would be a resource of reality. They will do anything - anything - to keep unions alive. Lies, threats, violence, extortion, etc. Anything.
gullyborg said it directly above - unions are nothing more than thuggish collections of goons who extort businesses for more money, and keep out competition. So KatieKat, if unions are so good why are they against all non-union business? Why do they hate competition?
I see, unions "hate". I imagine they must be "evil", too, in your world of good versus.
And gullyborg and pundit failed to include any sources for alleged "actual data". And this socialist website does manage to provide references from which it pulls its facts.
But I'm a scientist, trained to draw conclusions from data, not parrot back talking points they heard on hate radio. I wonder what would happen if cable-tv news started to do that?
That website seems to have forgot to list all of the companies that were unionized that had to terminate operations (thousands of jobs lost) because they could no longer remain competitive - their labor costs were just too high.
I don't need any radio or TV programs to know the obvious when it comes to economics and running a company.
I do want to thank you for taking the time to post and staying on topic (unlike some that just like to puke). I sincerely mean that. The whole union issue is one that divides, that is for sure. To me blogs help to open up issues that no radio or TV personality can, or ever will. Since blogg'n and reading other blogs I have changed my thinking - believe it or not! And, I do not believe this is a binary world we live in - either good or evil - since both are very subjective, right?
I agree that the good versus evil debate is simplistic and not worthy of the issues today (remember the "axis of evil"?). But the fact remains that people are commenting on things that they must know nothing about (any of you pro-walmart bloggers ever been part of the "working poor") and FAILING to cite any source. Some large companies actually take responsibility for their employees (as they should, because without health insurance, people are forced to go to the ER where they can't be turned away, costing the taxpayers LOTS of money! Isn't this what we don't want?
It's amazing how short sighted people can be when all they care about is their wallet, and "love thy neighbor" is just something you read in a book somewhere.
"Not to mention that pulling statistics from a Berkely college is like trying to get a fair appraisal of the United States from Castro. Berkely is also the town that has the highest ratio of police to college students of any college town in the U.S. because the dirty leftists, communist holdovers and other sorry examples of humanity cause so much trouble in town. Not to mention the third world atmosphere such a vacation spot."
You're freaking kidding me. I cite 3 references and this is the best you can do, pundit? Ever heard of a published study, pundit? Again, conclusions are drawn with data. I doubt you'd find any to dispute the UC study. And where are your arguments with the Business Week, Atlanta Journal or other aspects?
Your assessment of what is below the poverty line is again baseless and goes to show how out of touch you are with the working poor. Where in the world did you find this "definition of poverty"? Simplistic and short-sighted, not to mention selfish. I'm sure your sense of social responsibility must also be impressive.
How about the census bureau? Are they part of the vast conspiracy? Are they some "dirty leftist" organization? Let's leave the name calling for the playground, shall we?
"The Office of Management and Budget at the Census Bureau defined the poverty threshold in 2003 as $18,810 for a family of four; $14,680 for a family of three; $12,015 for a family of two; and $9,393 for an individual."
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/26/news/economy/poverty_survey/?cnn=yes
Or do you dispute that that is pretty freaking poor? How do people afford food and rent, not to mention health and child care?
And it's a shame that our service men and women get the shaft from the government they set out to defend. No one disputes that. Don't even try to pretend that I do.
I'm guessing your line of work is not on the table to be outsourced - yet. Good luck.
Hey guess what...
People that work at Wal-Mart do so of their own free will. Don't tell me 'Oh there aren't any better local jobs for them' either. They could always move.
Remember minimum wage jobs are for people that are either:
A: Kids that want a job to earn spare cash.
B: People that really don't need to work but want to for some insane reason.
C: People that are at a point in their life where they aren't sure of what they want to do for the rest of it.
Anyone else that works for minimum wage, by choice, and expects to live on it, are morons.
That's really compassionate, Ace. My guess is you never had to work a crap job to pay bills and survive. You must not have been paying attention to all those "new jobs" we've created in the service industry. If you're lucky, you or someone you love won't have to fill one.
The ignorance of some people? I think making sweeping generalizations is pretty ignorant.
No one says that unions have been historically perfect. It's commonly heard that power corrupts, (and absolute power corrutes absolutely, just look at the administration). But I did ask specific questions in my last post. If this is your only union experience I feel sorry. When I compare the elected (union) official who should be held accountable by the members with the business owner who is held accountable by the investors/bottom line, who do you think has a better chance of representing the worker's best interest?
And, Pundit, since my "ignorance" apparently doesn't achieve that of the me-generation that apparently Ace is from, help enlighten me. How many questions from my previous posted response to you CAN you answer?
the new model is to give all your workers no more than 30 hours, unless they are management, then you dont have to pay overtime, benefits, etc.
because walmart is one of the largest employers in the country, there are a lot of people having to work at walmart for 30 hours a week, and somewhere else for 30 hours to buy their health insurance, etc.
by the way, go to a walmart and try to buy something made in america. their red, white, and blue logo makes me want to puke.
Real simple solution to all this:
either shop at Wal-Mart, or don't.
and don't try to give me crap about "Wal-Mart moved into (insert small town name here) and now it's the only place to buy anything."
that's bullshit.
Ever heard of the internet?
Ever heard of getting your sorry ass into your car and driving 10 miles?
Ever heard of continuing to support the other small businesses in the community? Because YES there will be remaining small businesses in the community. A giant corporation like Wal-Mart doesn't get big by moving in where there is no existing market for goods to sell. It takes a sizeable community to support the overhead cost. You won't find a Wal-Mart anywhere that has less than about 15-20 thousand people living within a few minutes drive. And with that many people, there will ALWAYS be at least one other source for common goods.
I challenge you to find ONE single community in this country where you HAVE to buy shit at Wal-Mart.
Now, having established that you don't have to shop there--either shop at Wal-Mart, or don't. If Wal-Mart pisses you off that much, buy elsewhere.
Case closed.
"Pundit said...
Not to mention that pulling statistics from a Berkely college is like trying to get a fair appraisal of the United States from Castro. Berkely is also the town that has the highest ratio of police to college students of any college town in the U.S. because the dirty leftists, communist holdovers and other sorry examples of humanity cause so much trouble in town. Not to mention the third world atmosphere such a vacation spot."
*Learn to spell BERKELEY and I might take what you had to say seriously.
On topic, the host was complaining in their post that unions are bad and not having unions makes Walmart good. (Profit=good. apparently treating employees like people=bad)
Of course I don't shop at Walmart, but that doesn't make the treatment of their employees reprehensible, and make one wonder whether with a union they might have a better chance of working for a living wage. For such a wealthy country there sure are a lot of poor people.
Guess what? I did work at a crappy job like that... when I was in high school. I even worked at a McDonald's full time while I went to college. Then I quit and got a real job.
When I was working at McDonald's I thought if I could make $8 an hour I'd be set. Needless to say I make more than that now, by a large margin. I like to call it personal initiative. Have a plan to better yourself and don't let anyone stand in your way, not even yourself.
Post a Comment