There was a comment on my blog yesterday that stirred up one helluva hornet's nest. Of course, it was about Wal-Mart and the upcoming hit piece of a movie - at least that's how it started.
I'll start with the comment that spawned all this. Bear in mind, the reason I deleted the comment was because it wasn't pertinent to the subject of the post (Michael Steele's trip to Salisbury.)
"Nice blog, have you heard about the new walmart movie that documents the high cost to low price? Check out the sample clip on my blog www.thoughtsoft.blogspot.com, or go to walmartmovie.org Thanks"
Here's his bio, from the website, so you have an idea of who started this:
Im a student at University of Missouri, Columbia. Majoring in history and philosophy. My blog brings to the viewer the best and most interesting websites and articles I can find that are important for the short term and long term survival of the environment and a healthy democracy.
Well, the comment piqued my interest so I decided to head over there and read the post. Basically it said that "The High Cost of Low Price" was a "MUST-SEE" movie. Don't think I'll do that, but I had to comment. This is what I wrote back:
As it turns out, I'm not sure if you commented on my blog out of the sheer attempt to spread the word about this so-called documentary, or if you actually happened to read my blog archives, where several posts actually happen to deal with my feelings about Wal-Mart. The particular comment that you made was one I decided to delete simply because it wasn't germaine to the post that it was linked to. But I did decide to stop by and look at the blog, which I suppose was the objective!
Just by reading two or three posts on your blog it's apparent that you buy hook, line, and sinker into the union's anti-Wal-Mart propaganda line. They are just so enraged that Wal-Mart is a successful corporation who chooses not to be unionized, and for good reason - it leads to higher prices!
Where I live we have several food stores, Wal-Mart being one. It turns out that I do the bulk (but not all) of my shopping there because they sell goods I desire at the lowest everyday prices. This isn't to say that they ALWAYS have the lowest prices, but that's the beauty of competition.
In my posting, over and over I have stressed that nobody is having a gun put to their head and being told, "you must work at Wal-Mart." People know coming in that in the retail field, you're not going to get rich working as a cashier. And the majority of those who work at Wal-Mart aren't doing it as the sole support to their families. There's a lot of senior citizens who work there for various reasons, as well as a huge number of working wives. This is something that the unions fail to mention when they bitch about how the health insurance is at Wal-Mart...many of their employees do not need it because they're covered under a spouse's plan or, if they're over 65, they're entitled to Medicare.
There are two other reasons that Wal-Mart is a passion of mine. And no, neither of them is having a family member working there or owning stock in the company. Number one, the Democrats in Maryland's General Assembly (our legislature) put together an absolutely dreadful piece of legislation called the "Fair Share Health Care Act." It was basically tailored to punish one successful company, I'm sure you can guess which one. All because they didn't pay enough in health care benefits in the opinion of the Democrats, the unions, and their main grocery store competitor in Maryland, who is unionized.
Because of this legislation, item number two came into play. A few months ago, plans were announced by Wal-Mart to build a regional distribution center a few miles south of here. The county where it would be located is one of Maryland's poorest and most rural counties, and the 1,000 jobs that would be provided would make it the county's largest employer. But, even though Wal-Mart owns the land, the plans for this center have been put on hold pending the disposition of the Fair Share bill, which was properly vetoed by our governor. Unfortunately, the veto is likely to be overriden since the Democrats have enough votes to do so.
I'm sure you're gung-ho to see this movie that slams Wal-Mart. And there are a few things that I don't like about them, such as their occasional abuse of eminent domain. But that's also a function of local government being greedy and seeing tax dollars - money brought in by payroll taxes on Wal-Mart employees.
However, on balance I think Wal-Mart is a good company, and this campaign by the unions is only out of fear that a large successful corporation that is not unionized will shrink their worker pool. More importantly to them, it shrinks the millions of dollars in the pot of union dues that they use to attempt to influence the political process in negative ways (a larger, more intrusive government.)
I look at it this way. The maker of this movie has every right to make it, that's what's great about our country. But I have every right to ignore it, and I want to maintain my right to shop where I please and look for the lowest price. Wanting the lowest possible price isn't "greed", as one of your commentors said, it's part of the beauty of the capitalist system. Another part of that beauty is the freedom to leave a workplace if the pay and conditions aren't suitable for a particular individual. But since more people are voting with their feet and wishing to be employed at Wal-Mart than those leaving, I'm left to assume that the people working at Wal-Mart of their own free will are happy with Wal-Mart's pay scale and benefits package.
So Thomas (the host) replied:
Michael Swartz,Your logic is fallacious... in no way can you conclude that "...the people working at Wal-Mart of their own free will are happy with Wal-Mart's pay scale and benefits package." There is no deductive validity to that statement, it is not even probable in an inductive argument. There only thing of merit in your comments is your stand fast approach to being a supporter of the consequences of capitalism and your obvious libertarian religion.
I take it, you missed the new memo... recently recovered by walmartwatch.org... and the story ran just about in every paper nation wide.
Then kleinpete wrote:
Tom, thanks for stopping by my blog. I can proudly say I have contributed less than $10 to WalMart.
But they aren't the only company screwing America.
If anyone in government or business really cares about national security,they can start by bringing manufacturing back into this country and paying living wages.
So I had to reply to both of them, kleinpete solely out of curiosity:
Thomas:
I sure can conclude that, "...the people working at Wal-Mart of their own free will are happy with Wal-Mart's pay scale and benefits package," because it's the truth. Here's another way to put it: if they didn't offer a wage/benefits package that a worker of a certain skill level thought was appropriate, they wouldn't work there. Wal-Mart is not the sole employer offering jobs out there.
I can give you a personal example. When I was laid off from my previous job, I looked in my old hometown but also expanded the search to other places to find a job that was appropriate to my skill level and salary demands and I found it here. I made a decision and moved with the incentive that my new company would defray some of my moving costs.
Since you are a UM student and I long ago graduated college, I would conclude that you haven't seen a lot of the "real" world quite yet. That's not a slam on you, age begets experience.
And kleinpete: Is it suitable for that business to be foreign-owned? I don't have the articles or writer names off the top of my head, but I've seen in a few sources in my reading that the U.S. is still a net insourcer of jobs. Ask people who work for the auto plants from Toyota, Mercedes, etc. that dot the south.
I would be more concerned as a national security issue that we stop the influx of illegal immigration, which also has some effect on depressing wages.
But then tahoma activist chimed in:
Swartz totally misses the point, probably because he hadn't bothered finding out exactly how utterly heinous and ruthless the Wal*Mart corporation's business practices are. The union (and I assume in this case he refers to the UFCW, who do most organizing of store clerks) is seeing a massive hemmoraging of good quality jobs to this massive beast that ruthless shuts down all attempts by workers to form a union, which is nothing more than a democratically-elected group of representatives and their agents whose sole purpose is to advocate for their members.
Seems to me that the union is doing the right thing, fighting for good jobs, working to protect communities from this Chinese-American company that has no allegiance to the Chinese or the American people. Multinational corporations, of which Wal*Mart is just the most egregious example, are choking the life out of this planet, and in every community where their wealth is used to determine the course of the citizens' lives and well-being.
If Swartz wants to whine and make long posts about how good of a shopper he is, he should get off his intellectual butt and read some of the actual science (which is by definition not propaganda) on what makes Wal*Mart so bad for its employees, its customers, and the planet. Go to www.wakeupwalmart.com to learn all about their heinous double-dealing and cruelty.
If you're interested in a brand new method of community organizing that puts the power right in the hands of the ordinary people, come check out the American Peoples Congress blog at www.apctahoma.blogspot.com
Tahoma is the name for our local region, but we can have a different APC chapter for every 30000 citizens in this country. Start your own branch today with the tools I've got available on the website.
Peace and good luck fighting the beast.
Jeff Richardson
Education Director
America in Solidarity
www.americasolidarity.com
So I took that as a challenge and I went to the anti-Wal-Mart website, which is sponsored by the UFCW union. (Not a surprise, it goes in with my initial argument.) There I found the so-called smoking gun memo that was cited by Thomas, and I read it. Afterward, I had this to say:
Rather than offend commentors with a long post, I'll attempt to be brief.
We're simply not going to agree on this, are we? I read the Wal-Mart memo (all 27 pages) and one passage stuck out at me:
"On both of these issues - affordability and public assistance - it is important to note that our offering and performance are on par with other retailers; Wal-Mart's critics, however, hold it to a 'large company' standard, not a retailer standard. Despite the difference in industy economics, critics believe we should behave more like a GM or a Microsoft than a Target or a Sears." To me, that is the heart of the issue. No one rags on similarly non-union Target or Sears/KMart.
Also read a short article about Costco and their company business model. They have found a way to succeed using higher wages and benefits, which is admirable.
Now, Mr. Richardson, I also want to "put power right in the hands of the ordinary people" as well. But looking at your website, I find links to those who want to take power away from the individual and entrust it to a larger and more intrusive federal government.
I appreciate the arguments and the fact they didn't sink to simple name-calling. I'm sure this debate will continue.
Thomas commented:
M Swartz, Watch the documentary, and talk to former Walmart workers, and develope empathy, thats right empathy, and the worm will turn for you too my friend.
So I'm continuing the debate here. I will admit that I'm troubled about 46% of children of Wal-Mart employees being on Medicaid or uninsured. But - I also want to know, how much of this is by the choice of the employee? And - how does that number compare to other retailers? I'd be a lot less troubled if I found out that Target has a number of 44%. We simply don't know.
And I do think that if Costco can do business effectively in the manner which they do and keep their prices on a level with Wal-Mart's, then if and when they come to Salisbury I'll shop there. I shop Giant on occasion, even though they're a union store and I probably wouldn't care to see their chosen politicians stay in office.
But I also believe that Wal-Mart has some good ideas in this memo. They could be a leader in putting health clinics in their stores, which would hopefully encourage employees to use those as a primary care outlet rather than the extremely expensive ER. And health savings accounts are a way to let the individual have more of a stake in their health care. Personally, I'd rather have one, that way I could go to whichever doctor, lab, or other provider I choose, not one that CareFirst happens to cover. All this while maintaining catastrophic health care coverage.
Who knows, I may need a laugh and go see the movie. I'm sure some group of moonbats will show the DVD around here.
Finally, one thing in reply to Jeff Richardson. I have no problem with collective bargaining although I negotiated my own wage, thank you. Even got a raise without asking for it.
You can put a union wherever you want and I'll support it wholeheartedly, when the following happen:
1. You support right-to-work laws in each state. If being in a union is such a great thing, why are there closed shops? Are you afraid of competition? Since I know there are union locals in Virginia, and it's a right-to-work state, obviously it can be done.
2. You allow the Beck decision to take effect fully, with no reprisals or blackballing for any employee who opts out of withholding that part of his union dues not used for purposes of organizing and negotiating future contracts. Besides, what does it cost to sit down and negotiate a contract? Seems like the unions have a lot of overhead going.
Speaking of which, this brings up another point that extends the portion of a post I did earlier about the I-912 controversy in Washington state. It was ruled that if a talk radio host speaks on the subject that it's considered an "in-kind" contribution to the proponents of I-912. So does this mean that all the union thugs who will be out supporting it have to log their volunteer time as an "in-kind" contribution too? Would the UAW, who's negotiated Election Day in even-numbered years as a paid holiday, have to log each employee's pay that day as a political contribution to the Democrat party? Opened up a can of worms, huh? That's what you get when courts dictate law from the bench.
You know, when I go do my grocery shopping tomorrow, as always my first stop will be Wal-Mart. I'll have to see if they have anyone out there pushing Halloween candy and ask them where they work. Might be an interesting debate after that.
