Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Monday Ryan roundup
Next Post: Open thread
Posted in:
Expect light blogging today. I’m speaking at the Union League Club tomorrow morning and I have a lot to do before I leave today. I’ll post some stories later this morning.
I’ve decided to cover up this lack of blogging with a somewhat long question about WalMart.
As this Washington Post story shows, the company and the opposition are hiring consultants right and left (lilterally) and girding for a major battle in DC, the states and all the way down to the store level.
Unions and others have geared up in a big way to oppose the giant retailer. The UFCW won’t endorse any candidate who accepts campaign contributions from the company, for instance.
WalMart has responded in kind.
Under fire, Wal-Mart turned to Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Bush-Cheney political director Terry Nelson and several Democrats, among them civil rights leader Andrew Young and campaign strategist Leslie Dach.
But it has also changed some of its practices.
After Maryland’s legislature passed a labor-backed bill requiring companies — Wal-Mart in particular — to spend more on workers’ health insurance, the Arkansas company came out with improvements in its health care coverage.Amid criticism, Wal-Mart also has announced plans to:
_Help competing local companies stay in business.
_Expand its share of the Hispanic market.
_Sell more environmentally friendly products.
_Increase diversity in its work force
Where do you stand on all of this? Should politicians avoid contact with WalMart, or is this just an overblown issue? Is WalMart a bad company, a good company or somewhere in between? Should local governments stop WalMart from expanding in their areas? Should Illinois require WalMart to pay more for its health insurance plan so that workers can avoid going on Medicaid? Should government just get the heck out of the way and maybe even praise the company for hiring and training workers that few other companies may want? Should both candidates for governor be asked about this topic as well?
Let’s try to avoid sloganeering, bumper sticker logic and the like in comments today. Tell us what you really believe in your own words, without all the goofy borrowed phrases from blogs, talk radio, etc. Also, try to note in your comments whether you shop at WalMart or not.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 3:20 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Monday Ryan roundup
Next Post: Open thread
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s revolutionized retailing and distribution. Government should get out of the way when Walmart wants to invest in depressed neigborhoods for sure. And it does hire and train workers other companies would shun.
Unions need to show the same creativity redesigning their services to workers in the same way Walmart redefined retailing and how it served customers.
Walmart needs a good lobbyist though… they take more flax then the Exxon Mobil CEO who got a $400 pension package… Walmart’s become the symbol of capitalist greed and they’re a poor example of it. They’ve been innovative and created value… you don’t see that same innovation with oil which has just given us fake products like crystal clear.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 6:35 am
It’s called free enterprise. All these Waltons are billionaires because they have something that most people want.
Does W-M hurt locally owned business? Sure but that is the nature of American capitalism. Hog all the money for yourself, run everyone else away.
What did the local businesses offer regarding salary and benefits? Minimum wage and “hospitalization” insurance at best.
W-M does put more people to work for them than they put out of work at local businesses.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 6:49 am
I shop at Wal-Mart for things like lawn furniture and kids’ big-ticket toys, etc. But first I check prices for local stores and other big-box stores. In other words, I do my homework. Sometimes Wal-Mart wins, sometimes they don’t. I order books from them all the time because they are half the prices of local and national book stores and they arrive at my door in 3 days. I also think they provide employment for people who are retired, those who do not have the benefit of a good education to move up on their own and also those who most companies wouldn’t hire at all. W-M employees have been unfailingly polite and helpful to me. The only quibble I would have is that they should offer some sort of health insurance to employees. Only the wealthy in this country can afford to buy their own insurance and the sooner companies process that fact, the better
employees they would attract. Wal-Mart is providing reasonably priced goods and services to an increasingly stressed middle-class as we continue to fall behind in upward mobility. But do check your local and other national stores also.
Comment by Skeptical Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 7:08 am
Progressives used to read Sinclair Lewis’s Main Street and make fun of the small town business folks.
Now they champion the little stores and attack Wal Mart. It is a strange twist because Wal Mart’s achieved the economies of scale and distribution Marxists promised state enterprize would deliver.
Concentrated wealth is concentrated power. So there is always a role for Gov to check that…
…but my guess is their is a Wal Mart competitor out there that will surpass them…
…technology is going to make Labor virtually obsolete by the way in retail. IFCW needs a Harry Bridges to cut a technology deal just as he did long ago for the Longshoremen.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 7:46 am
Bill Baar is half right. WalMart has become a galvanizing symbol of corporate greed. But it is a reputation they have earned.
The company locks it’s night employees in at night. That’s totally third world, about a step above shackles in the wall.
The only Americans who have seen their standard of living rise as a result of WalMart’s greed is the Walton family. While their employees go on welfare, the Walton family finds themselves atop the list of richest Americans, along side people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who managed to get to the top without screwing their employees and the American economy.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 7:52 am
YDD,
I’ve worked Retail at night. You want to be locked in. Walmart creates a lot of jobs. I know people who work security for them in the new stores they’re opening and others who work at the distribution facility in Tomah Wis. They have gripes as we all do but they’ve been great jobs for them… interestingly one was offered a job with Walmart in China.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 7:55 am
Walmart typifies several problems in the economy and politics.
Take the issue of guns. Walmart recently decided to stop selling firearms in as many as 1000 stores. The anti-gun groups jumped up and down claiming victory.
I can remember a time when Sears, JC Penny and others sold guns, including handguns.
When Walmart comes to town, many small bussineses can’t compete with the prices. Walmart gets better prices becuase they are bigger, can leverage buying power, and get a lot of things from overseas. With thei ability to import on a grander scale and do it themselves instead of using import brokers and middlemen, they get a better break on the cost of getting the product here.
In the mean time, local gun dealers can not compete for the proices they offer on many guns and ammo. They have larger stocks of camo and other accessories.
some of the small gun dealers go out of business. Yet when the going gets tough, you don’t wee Walmart supporting the local DU dinners, or Natioanl Wild Turkey Federaltion dinners.
You don’t see them helpingout with the issues locally or at the state level.
So they come in, set up shop, run out some local business and then may pull the product line in the end and leave the consumers high and dry.
in the mean time, taking away a local place where a lot of guys/gals get together and politics of often the topic of the day.
when this happens, Walmart does more than hurt a community’s business base.
that’s why it is important to support the local guys. try getting some manager behind the counter to show you how to take that new gun apart. Or help you out with a problem. service is not their strong point.
Dozer
Comment by Dozer Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 8:08 am
I grew up in northern Wisconsin. Walmart came in about 10 years ago. There was already a mall on the edge of the downtown, which Walmart joined. The old downtown already had to adapt to the mall some 15 years before that, developing more service businesses. What Walmart did was make the town’s economy more dynamic, brought more jobs, and made the town more attractive as a regional center for medical services. The town did grow, though, at the expense of little crossroads towns, which were dying off anyway.
Did a post on this earlier regarding Illinois, and national politics:
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/
2006/02/war-on-walmart-war-on-us.html
Comment by Backyard Conservative Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 8:19 am
Wal Mart has used foresight and genuine innovation to get ahead, but it has also used monopolistic practices to destroy local businesses.
Let’s be direct: they’re out to kill every competitor and make billions, and they don’t care what the “externalities” are, whether they be environmental, community economic health, tax revenue to support public services, health of employees, etc.
They have this folksy community image which is completely disarming and largely innacurate. They aren’t a family of Arkansans doing well; it’s one of the largest companies in the world seeking a regulatory- and obligation-free environment in which to operate–just what all monopolies seek.
Government has to respond to their innovation by making sure that they bear all the same tax and regulatory burdens as every other corporation, and they are equally obligated to observe all state and federal labor laws. Many of those laws have resulted in a less “efficient” marketplace, but efficiency is not optimal for human beings and communities in every instance. We must protect something other than profit if we are to achieve a broad increase in the quality of life, and Wal-Mart has a mixed record at best in the communities where it has operated.
Let Wal-Mart make lots of money, but don’t exempt them from bearing the burdens of all other businesses–small and large.
Comment by No Such Thing as a Free Market or a Free Lunch Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 8:20 am
Back in the late fifies or early sixties the big grocery stores like Jewel put the little corner groceries out of business. The big groceries were and are union so union activists who claim sympathy for the small businesses losing their customers as one reason not to shop at Wal Mart really doesn’t wash.
The big home centers put the local lumber yards out of business as well. Are the owners of these groceries and home centers wealthy? Yes. Is there a mandated ceiling for when rich is too rich?
This may be painting an entire group with one brush, but my experience with those who advocate never shopping at Wal Mart are those who have a nice income while those who shop there are trying to save money for necessities. Wal Marts are almost always packed with shoppers and have employees who have been with the same store for years.
How could a local government refuse to allow a Wal Mart to expand if they meet the zoning and building codes for that community?
Comment by diane Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 8:23 am
Lets call it like it is…unions are facing decreasing membership numbers so they are looking at any organization with a large number of employees (i.e., Walmart, Health care) that are not currently unionized and begin a corporate smear campaign using left-wing special interest groups to put pressure on the company with the media and politicians. Once they are nice and beat up the union can come in to play the role of “reformer” and “help” the company become a better corporate citizen…in other words the union turns off the smear campaign once they get their membership coffers filled.
Comment by anon Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 8:34 am
I shop at Target instead. Low prices, same quality & they appear to be a responsible corportation.
Comment by bardo Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 8:41 am
YDD is half right. Yes, the Waltons are richer. But who are Walmart’s vendors? Now YDD will most likely scream ‘CHINA!’. But again, he is only half right. What about Microsoft and IBM? Surely they benefit from Walmart making money. Oracle? Walmart’s world class supply chain wasn’t free you know. Middle class IT people are making a living due to tech spending at Walmart.
And who is building all those shiny new stores? The consturction industry is making money there. And landowners who are selling their land to make room for stores.
But YDD would have you believe that only rich people get richer off Walmart. That’s classic class warfare. But what about Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat that have their IRA in a mutual fund that owns Walmart? How many people are retired now that had huge gains on their retirement portfolio because of Walmart’s growth in the 1980s-1990s?
Of course, YDD would probably want to take this capitalist money away from retirees and give them your tax money instead.
Comment by White Cat Independent Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 8:50 am
WalMart has actively trained and grown China’s manufacturing economy, increasing both our trade deficit and a long-term threat to our remaining the world’s only superpower. This is a serious national security issue.
Why can’t they improve the economies of other less threatening countries like India, South Korea, or Eastern Europe?
Walmart is also not really that inexpensive. The poor should be shopping at Save-A-Lot, Dollar General, and thrift/charity stores.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 8:51 am
A simple glance across most towns of any size will reveal this “larger is better” trend. How many towns still have the locally owned little corner gas station. How about the mom and pop diner? Regardless of what you think about the wealth that has been created by the Walton’s, the trend in America is toward larger enterprises that can buy larger volumes and reduce prices. Is it such a bad thing to allow poor families a place to shop at reasonable prices? Overall, Walmart contributes more positive to the US economy than negative.
Comment by Logical Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 9:02 am
This past year I saw a very interesting story in a business magazine about the CEO of Snapper Mowers going down to Bentonville to tell Walmart, “thanks, but it’s over”.
Walmart wanted a big name brand to match what Lowes and Home Depot were doing with John Deere and the like. Walmart was selling Snappers at a loss, cheaper than Snapper’s nationwide network of distributors/service centers could, threatened to drive the dealer network out of business, making Walmart the only outlet for the mowers. Moreover, Walmart was demanding the product be made cheaper every year. The Snapper CEO comes in and says: ” I have cut costs to the bone, but won’t compromise the workmanship. This is a superior product that will last for years and years, and you want me to price it like these other imported no-name models you sell that fall apart after one or two seasons. My product costs more because it’s built to higher standards and lasts a lifetime.”
Walmart guy says: “we can fix that, we’ll bring in mowers made in China, and you can slap your name brand sticker on them, we’ll still charge the same and we’ll divide the profits”.
Snapper guy: “We’re done here”.
Similar thing happened to Vlassic pickles. Walmart coerced them into making a mega size pickle jar which turned out to be a bad deal: After massive retooling and reinvestment for the big pickle product, buying up new imported sources of pickles to feed the gigantic new quantity demand… it turned out there is such a thing as owning too many pickles at one time - the stuff was going bad in the jars before consumers could finish off half the jar. Walmart then dumps Vlassic, driving them to the edge of bankruptcy. It’s hard to tell Walmart no when you have a product to sell, because the devil tempts you with such massive numbers of sales, such market penetration. But they are masters of burn rate thinking.
Huffy Bikes: no longer made in America, thanks to Walmart. They couldn’t meet the volume demands of Walmart’s orders, and were forced to go to China for fabrication and assembly. It goes on like that.
I also really hate the way Walmart muscles into places it’s not wanted, bribing, buying, and politically threatening town governments to get zoning variances and ecological damage variances, give-aways of city services and infrastructure like road, sewer, power, only to up and vacate the property a few years later to build a bigger store down the road. One town thought they were smart and created a zoning reg that limited square footage to half the size of a standard Walmart. Walmart bought two adjacent properties and built two half-size walmarts with a dog trot between them, calling one a “garden center”. Walmart insisted on building stores over ancient native graveyards in Hawaii.
Walmart is a really obnoxious bully that wraps itself in false patriotism and the free market system, but it wants anything BUT a free market.
Comment by No Sir Sam Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 9:05 am
Anonymous 8:51, “#
Walmart is also not really that inexpensive. The poor should be shopping at Save-A-Lot, Dollar General, and thrift/charity stores.”
You have got to be kidding.
Comment by diane Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 9:12 am
Oh no, Wal-Mart has put the local shoppe out of business. How am I supposed to cope with not paying $5.00 for a loaf of bread now?
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 9:18 am
Have you lived on a limited income and compared prices of Walmart to the other less costly suppliers? Do you have any idea how the other half (more than half worldwide) live?
While quality is questionable, cost can be more important in hard times.
There’s some great bargins at Salvation Army, Goodwill and others. Garage sales or freecycle/craigslist web sites are more hit/miss, but also offer great bargains.
Anyone who assumes Walmart has the best prices…well, you know the saying about assuming.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 9:28 am
I shop at WalMart, Target, ShopKo, local and anywhere else the prices are right. WalMart does keep their prices low, but they also sell alot of crap. WalMart may come across as the “awshucks trying to be home town Walton” personality. Behind the scene they are a technology master who invested huge and went after what they wanted. Give them credit for that. Their entire operation is driven on their info systems and ability to get accurate, up-to-date information on their operations. They are driving RFID and forcing distribution changes that were simply not possible 10 years ago. And it saves them huge $$.
I have been to their original Walton store in Arkansas. It is (was)a typical small mom-and-pop sized operation you see anywhere. They took a chance and it worked. How is it different than Mejiers, Sears, Penney, K-Mart, Lowes, Best Buy, CVS or any other long list? Where are Goldblatts, Woolworths, Ben Franklins, Piggly-Wigglys, or other large, unsinkable chains that have gone away? Will GM and Ford be far behind without many internal changes?
Money wise, I have neighbors working at WalMart because they pay better than other local stores. Is WalMart a ruthless operation. Yeah, they can be. So can Albertons, Starbucks, and State Farm. Do they squeeze suppliers? What large buying group does not? Do the unions see a place they think they can get some needed members to increase their dwindling membership? Duh. Is WalMart right for a small town? Who is filling those parking lots and why do their 20 cashiers have 3-4 people waiting in line?
Should there be competition for WalMart and should there be a limit on their growth? There is and as long as people want to keep shopping there they will succeed. All someone has to do is put up the money to compete.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 9:29 am
I think this anti-Walmart stuff is nuts. I’m not here to defend every thing they do, but by and large, they have provided America with low-cost products. Liberal elites who can afford to shop at higher-end stores may not like Walmart, but for the majority of America’s poor and working class, Walmart is a godsend.
I’m frankly surprised and stunned that Walmart is under such harsh attack by the very people who claim to support the poor. Why would they a) want to shut down a company that has helped the rural poor and b) why would they attack such a wildy popular company and in effect, attack the millions of voters who shop there?
Comment by Daniel Darling Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 9:37 am
walmart is able to offer lower prices because they receive over $1 billion in tax incentives from local communities each year. that goes a long way towards helping the bottom line. it in not their retail expertise that gives them their advantage, it is these financial incentives they get. also, i am always amazed at the great anti union attitude towards walmart and then you see all the union folks going to the store to shop. go figure. walmart is not a good contributor to local community charities and chamber of commerce. by the way, i do not shop at walmart.
Comment by ron Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 9:41 am
Is Walmart so much different in its pay and benefits than, say, Target? If not, then why is Walmart singled out while Target gets a pass?
Comment by respectful Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 10:29 am
I don’t often shop at Walmart because there’s not one handy to me. I have found that there electronics prices are outrageous compared to Fry’s Electronics and Tiger Direct and at their groceries, they don’t compare well with Costco, especially on meats. For casual clothes, they don’t compare all that well with ShopKo. For paperback books, nothing compares with the second hand book store I frequent.
I do know that Walmart prefers to be located outside of communities so they don’t have to shoulder the school taxes that the downtown shops pay. I know that they would rather close a store than allow a union to set up shop.
Currently they are trying to get permission to set up a commercial bank. I believe there are Depression Era laws that forbid a retailer from owning a bank. Largely because it can set up a lot of conflicts of interest. For instance, if the local Mom and Pop retailer wants to expand and needs a loan so go to the Walmart Bank, they would need to provide business plans.
Walmart is not evil. Walmart is a business. But we regulate businesses for a reason.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 10:39 am
The manufacturing products and skills that Walmart is giving China will enable them to rapidly grow their military with more sophisticated weapons.
We need to end China’s favorable trade status and encourage a shift to a real democracy like India.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 10:52 am
Most small rural towns above 2,500 population get a Dollar General to save them more money than Walmart.
Walmart started and built a reputation as a low-cost supplier. Anyone who has studied business knows most of these big companies eventually maximize their low-cost market, so they only way to increase profits is to raise prices and quality to attract a broader market. Walmart is now a very middle class retailer still basking in its low-cost reputation thanks to its innovations.
Going into organic food is the latest step to further broaden its market to a higher end customer and is very typical of maturing businesses.
If the economy goes bad, being in the middle is deadly…businesses want to be the high end or low end supplier. Perhaps Walmart is has invented the recipe of how to be everything to everybody?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 11:12 am
I might be crazy, but I think that I read that 24,000 people lined up at the walmart on the soutside for jobs a couple months ago.
Half the posts i’ve read compliment Walmart because it is a good place for poor people to shop. Thats insulting - people shop there because they have no other choice. They can only afford to buy the cheaply produced crap from Walmart. Most available jobs nowadays are low paying, no benefit jobs, unless you’re a vp or ceo, then you’re making much more.
Comment by Lloyd Braun Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 11:25 am
My wife and I shop at Wal-Mart but we frequent grocery stores for food. However, when I lived in a small community with a Super Wal-Mart and only a couple of small grocers, I shopped there for almost everything.
Small business owners cannot always cry wolf when they can solve part of the Wal-Mart issue themselves. For instance, a small business owner who runs a store in a town with a SWM can elect to stay open longer than 8-5 while also working the phones to try and secure a hot new product or a discount supplier’s service. One of the areas Wal-Mart capitalizes on is the crowd who shops later at night and/or earlier in the morning. If I live in a small town and SWM is the only place open past 8, why wouldn’t I want to shop at SWM? Why should I have to spend my lunch hour or run to a store immediately after work to buy food? It’s inconvenient and contrary to free market principles.
My main complaint against Wal-Mart is their bullying tactics employed when negotiating prices and supply. They terrorize manufacturers, farmers and distributors while basically blackballing companies who refuse to meet their demands.
As for health care and wage scales, what do Dominick’s, McDonald’s, Target and other large retailers/chains pay their employees? What health care does Subway offer its employees? With over 1 million employees, offering top-of-the-line health plans to every employee is unconscionable. And when people denegrate Wal-Mart for paying their managers and regional bosses well, such are the spoils for going to school and being willing to work long hours and put up with plenty of stress. In a way, Wal-Mart is a good example of a company that allows college grads to start off in a good spot while working their way up the company ladder. Employees can also claim that ladder and achieve success.
I truly believe that a lot of liberal thinkers hate Wal-Mart due to its success. They see a company succeeding in the free market without unionized labor while selling cheap, foreign-made goods and offering the best jobs to those who either have worked hard or went to school and are willing to make sacrifices to better themselves and the company. Libs also can’t stand the fact that Wal-Mart can improve the economic and labor situations in a place like Evergreen Park. It runs contradictory to the Marxist belief system.
On a side note, I would love to see how many self-professed libs and how many union members shop at Wal-Mart but don’t talk about it. I bet the number would be quite large.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 11:46 am
As long as Wal-Mart respects the law, there’s no problem with it. Of course, there have been well-publicized incidents where they did break the law, and they should be punished to the full extent in those cases.
Cities have absolutely no business preventing Wal Mart from moving in to their towns. If the owner of the land wants to sell it to Wal Mart, then not allowing him to do so is a backdoor form of eminent domain.
Comment by Cheekyman Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 11:54 am
The dialogue here is interesting. The contradictions are amazing.
People claim that the federal government should be out of the health care business and that business should provide that.
However, when a business refuses to do so, they claim that the free market system allows that.
Walmart has done some great things, but they have a record of being brutal to their own employees. We should give credit where credit is due, but we should call them on it when they fail.
Contrary to what Bill Baar said, locking people into stores is not good policy. It is borderline slavery. “We are locking the doors so you can’t leave.” It is unbelievable that people support that.
Regarding shopping there: I don’t. However, they way they treat their employees is not the major factor because, other than Starbucks, most retailers or chain food places treat their employees pretty bad. It is not like we can suddenly shop at the enlightened store. I try and shop for groceries at union places like Jewel, but beyond that, there is not that much that can be done.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 12:27 pm
Gotta give Skeeter credit, he’s definately a card carrying member of the left if he’s looking to only shop at union supermarkets.
Skeeter, when you’re done reading the Daily Worker, can I borrow it?
Comment by hammer time Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 1:05 pm
Oh No! “Hammer” called me a Commie! What am I going to do!
And then the right wing extremists wonder why they never win elections in Illinois. When their only response to a debate in 2006 is “disagree and you are red” then it is clear that the far right has no answers for Illinois.
Here’s an idea: Stand up for companies that provide health insurance, so the government doesn’t have to. If you do that, then people might vote for you, instead of mocking all of the candidate that the far right has tossed at us, from Keyes, to Obie, to Salvi.
Win elections, Hammer. Then give lectures to the rest of us.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 1:34 pm
The thing that floors me about union shop grocery stores is that grocery store workers make little more than minimum wage and have to pony up a small percentage of their hourly pay for union dues. How is that fair? Is the job of bag boy or floor sweeper really a job that needs to be protected by a union? Why should a seventeen year old kid who is only working a PT job to make money for clothes and entertainment be forced to pay thirty cents an hour so he can have “protection”? When I was living in Southern Illinois, “union” workers protested outside of several Borowiak IGA stores. At first I gave them credit. However, I then read a story that those picketing the stores were actually part-time picketers being paid by the union to stand outside and hold signs. The union paid them minimum wage to do so. And guess what? They’re still protesting. Give me a break.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 1:37 pm
I try to patronize union shops too, when I can. That’s not a communist position. I’m grateful to the unions for ensuring that workers were paid good wages where my father worked so that he could provide for the family and pay our way through college. I’m grateful when I take a sick day or a vacation day for the efforts of the unions to make these perks part of the workplace for so many Americans. I stand in awe of the miners who fought for their right to unionize and in some cases were killed for their efforts.
I don’t currently work in a union shop (they don’t exist in my field) but I understand where I came from.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 1:42 pm
TS,
Next time you go into that grocery store, look around. If all you see is 17 year olds, then you really are not looking around.
At union stores, you are going to find people make a fair wage and also receiving quality health insurance and a receiving a pension. That’s what a union brings.
Look at the people working there. You are going to see a lot of women who are there either as working single parents (remember the whole debate about good jobs to get people off welfare and into the work force?), or to provide a second income so that their families can pay for college tuition (Bush has refused to provide tax cuts for tuition) or just to make ends meet.
Walk into the produce department and you are going to see men and women working full time.
Walk back to the meat department and you are going to see people making good money and working in a safe environment, thanks to unions.
Overall, you are going to see people proud of making a fair wage rather than working for the minimum wage and no benefits.
When the union makes sure the employees get those things, the government does not have to provide them.
Somehow, that last idea is completely lost on the right wing extremists. Or maybe they just don’t believe that anybody should have health insurance. Or, more likely, they think that quality health care is just for their rich friends.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 1:45 pm
Skeeter, I wanna shop where you go, because those I see at union supermarkets don’t look happy to be there, contrary to what the union likes us believe. Anyway, let us know when you have more PR to share with us from the union bosses!
Comment by Stephan Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 1:56 pm
Stephan - Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 1:56 pm:
“Skeeter, I wanna shop where you go, because those I see at union supermarkets don’t look happy to be there, contrary to what the union likes us believe. Anyway, let us know when you have more PR to share with us from the union bosses!”
Thanks for your “thoughts”, Stephen.
I note that you have not addressed any issue that I raised.
What about the fact that those people have health insurance?
What about the fact that they are making a decent wage?
What about the fact that the union is able to enforce safety regulations?
What about the fact that when employers provide health insurance, the government does not have to provide that care?
You addressed none of those issues.
Stephen is a walking example of what happens when people listen to Rush and watch FoxNews and think that is real “debate.”
Here’s a clue, Stephen: Calling your opponent a mouthpiece is not really “debate.” In fact, it is nothing more than “playground name calling.” And finally, it is not even remotely original. If you are going to toss insults, at least take some time to think up some good ones.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 2:03 pm
OK, let’s get back to the question at hand, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 2:06 pm
Skeeter,
You are right on the name-calling, but you maybe just as guilty. You’re large, sweeping judgments of Walmart are low on facts and high on hyperbole.
It’s not true that Walmart people don’t have insurance.
Its not true that they don’t make a decent wage.
And you haven’t answered a question, “Why don’t you folks attack Target and Home Depot and others?” Could it be because those stores give to more liberal groups?
Dan
Comment by Daniel Darling Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 2:08 pm
When businesses provide healthcare, employees don’t pay attention to the costs, so we all end up with a bloated healthcare system and lots of frivilous paperwork. Now that healthcare costs (waste) has gotten so high, businesses are logically increasing premiums or opting out.
If we want an efficient and effective system, we need everyone with an incentive to pay close attention to costs.
Spending more money on healthcare providers and technology is great for improving our quality of life, but wasting it on paperwork administration and lawyers is not.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 2:30 pm
I’m increasingly amazed at these debates in the land of the free. Government is going to decide for us if we have the “privilege” of shopping somewhere? Government is going to decide if the jobs people are lining up to apply for are “good enough” for them? Give me a break! Before you know it, we’re going to be like Europe, where it’s acceptable for politicians to control every aspect of citizen’s lives because they “know better.”
Comment by Liberty Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 2:33 pm
My wife and I shop at Wal-Mart, although the experience is painful, as the store near our house is always crowded, often dirty, and the service is mediocore at best. But we go for one reason — the prices.
Baar is right…Wal Mart has revolutionized retailing and distribution for the better. Check out this great “City Journal” article for some examples: http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_what_does_the_war.html.
As for Skeeter, I’m sympathetic to the concerns you raise, I just think there are better ways to deal with issues like health insurance for employees (e.g. government-sponsored national health insurance). But that is a debate for another day.
Comment by The Pizza Man Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 3:07 pm
Skeeter, never listened to Rush before…but I like that anyone who disagrees with you is called a Rush listener…you need new material my friend.
Tell you what, go work one of these jobs where peopling are humming all day long while making their “living wage” and tell us how it is.
Comment by Stephan Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 3:14 pm
This section does prove Rich Miller is the funniest guy in “journalism” Only Rich would use Walmart Wars question to help him dodge work while preparing for a jaunt to the swells at the Union League Club.
Will he take the foreign sports car or are they sending a jet?
P.S. If you see Rich running naked in the Millenium Park fountain tonight send him back to his suite. The lobster omelets get served about 7:30 a.m.
Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 3:41 pm
LOL.
I’m definitely not looking forward to the timing of this event. But I’m planning on being good tonight. Interviewing a certain reverend from the South Side and touring his ginormous church.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 3:46 pm
I very rarely shop at Walmart, but they sure make competitors scared. Target parked next to Walmart can beat the bejesus out of them on price and quality. Interesting that if you go to places like the NW Suburbs you see all the Big Box stores within half a mile of one another. Now we find Meijer ready to compete with them all.
The key is floor space. When Walmart builds 200K sq.ft. and the small boys have 8K, the variety of goods guarantees higher sales per sq.ft. A good Walmart averages $400/sq.ft. — a small boy is lucky to do $150. Lower volume means lower discounts from the wholesaler or manufacturer. Then there is turnover of the inventory. Higher turnover means the store can sell at lower prices and still make the same profit.
The successful small boys learn and change their ways. Like hardware stores. Coop buying like True Value and Ace. Service emphasis, small machine repair, rentals, discounting and selling off unmoving stuff. Pruning the inventory down. Every dollar o product on the shelf is a dollar that cannot be invested in better inventory. Special ordering saves inventory costs.
Having employees (a Home Depot secret) who know what they are selling.
Small boys can compete with Walmart where everything is on the shelf and no person in the store knows anything except if they have it and what the price is.
Small boys can not sit back and cry foul. Their businesses will disappear in front of their blurry eyes.
BTW Cermak Rd. The only taxes saved by moving outside of the City are City taxes. School Districts blanket and tax every parcel in every county. Cities want Walmart inside boundaries because of the sales taxes. They provide attractive sales tax incentives.
Comment by Truthful James Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 3:51 pm
The last time I checked this was still the United States of America where we enjoy capitalism.
Let me ask a few questions:
1. For all those who complain that Walmart does’t offer health care, and want to mandate it, are you also prepared to require EVERY business to do the same?
2. For UFCW: Since Hillary Clinton sat on the Board of Directors of Walmart, and accepted donations, I assume that you will neither endorse or contribute to her current Senate or possible presidential campaign?
3. Finally, we have a Governor who seeks to give tax credits to businesses (film studios) that don’t always pay union wage with benefits while cutting manufacturing credits that are used primarily by union shops with high paying jobs and benefits. Fair?
Finally, Walmart is simply this generation’s Kmart which used to be Sears and Woolworths. They will continue until the next American (hopefully) entreprenuer finds the next hot thing.
Comment by 4% Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 3:56 pm
4%,
Actually, Senator Clinton recently returned a $5000 donation from Wal Mart.
I think it perfectly acceptable for her to serve on that Board. During her years, they went from being a true outlaw company to a company that is anti-union but more mainstream anti-union.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 4:14 pm
Wal-Mart and other big box stores have a number of negative consequences for the communities in which they open and the country as a whole. So society has a vested interest, and the right, to address those negative consequences.
Studies, even one that Wal-Mart helped fund, show that they lower the number of jobs in an area because they (and every other big box retailer) use fewer people to sell the same amount of goods.
Studies also show they also drive pay down - not just for their workers or retail workers, or service workers, but for a wide range of people. So you not only get fewer jobs, but people in your community end up with jobs where they can’t support themselves.
So it’s natural for a city like Chicago to establish a living wage standard for these retailers. And it’s natural for towns who feel mega stores will destroy their hometown business district to write zoning laws that keep them out.
As a society, we have to step in when business’s action hurt us more than help us. Once upon a time, businesses said they needed child labor to stay profitable. Once upon a time, businesses used overt race and gender discrimination to hold wages down. Once upon a time, they were free to make you work 80 hours a week or buy your food at the company store.
It’s not anti-capitalist to insist that business operate within the standards that society believes are appropriate. The social and political pressure that Wal-Mart and other stores are under is just society’s way of telling them to play fair.
Comment by Progressive FP Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 5:19 pm
Progressive:
Amidst the “once upon a time’ stories we have the phrase “that society believes are appropriate” And whose society might that be?
Is this a function of formal governance or individual groups? We elect local governments to act for us. We live under their laws. You might call them unenlightened if you disagree with them and vote he rascals out. Failing that, you might go to the State government level and test if society agrees with you there, forcing State views on local governments. Dissatisfied with that result you next move would be to the Federal government? Society for you is an elitist concept — whoever agrees with your point of view.
Comment by Truthful James Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 6:01 pm
I’m curious. I wonder if those who are commenting on this issue and are opposed to Wal-Mart also support the Governor’s “All Kids” program.
Let’s be honest here: “All Kids” is a massive subsidy to Wal-Mart, coming at the expense of the union employers. Union workers who have fought hard to win health care coverage in their contracts pay for that coverage. Every dollar an employer spends on health care is a dollar that can’t go toward higher wages, additonal benefits or to hold down prices and be more competitive with Wal-Mart.
Instead of finding a way to reward the responsible employers — such as offering tax credits and incentives to employers willing to offer health care coverage — the Governor opted for a state-run, welfare-system type program that rewards the most irresponsible employers at the expense of the most responsible employers.
If you support “all kids” as offered by the Governor then you are supporting massive subsidies for Wal-Mart and other non-union,low-benefit, big-box retailers
Comment by Old Elephant Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 6:33 pm
I’ve just listed some examples to point out how many restrictions we’ve placed on business that people would find completely non-controversial (and highly desirable) now. I’ve done that because I think that mainstream America probably doesn’t want children working in mines or sweatshops. And how did we stop that? Lawmakers made it illegal. The knee-jerk reaction against government action bothers me because sometimes, we really need it.
Sometimes the public and government uses its power to protect people (like protecting their right to unionize) and sometimes the public and government uses its power to force its morals down other people’s throats (like prohibiting alcohol sales on certain days).
Society/the public/the government doesn’t get it right all the time, but that doesn’t mean they never get it right.
Comment by Progressive FP Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 9:19 pm
I believe it is right around the 100th anniversary of Upton Sinclair’s “the Jungle”. I read it a year or two back. While I think the last chapter or so is pedantic commie drivel, the rest of it resonates strongly with me: I can still see the traces of the neighborhoods and people he talked about, those were my grandparents and great-grandparents he wrote about, and if you transpose the surnames, some of what he wrote of is still going on with current immigrants. You mention that book, and most people think only of the health code issues, I’m talking about the attitudes of big business and corporations and how they step on the working man in a million different ways. Walmart is the same old devil in newer clothes. Imported from China, of course.
Comment by Bubbling crude Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 10:42 pm
For you progressives, found this via RCP on Pittsburglive.com:
Altogether, Wal-Mart’s prices, according to a study by M.I.T. economist Jerry Hausman and USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag, are saving U.S. consumers more than $50 billion a year, money that’s spent elsewhere, boosting volume at other businesses and creating new enterprises, including mom-’n-pops.
The net impact? The director of economic policy for the 2004 Kerry-Edwards campaign, New York University economist Jason Furman, contends that Wal-Mart is “a progressive success story.” With Wal-Mart’s prices ranging from 8 percent to 40 percent lower than people would pay elsewhere, states Furman, the increase in buying power that Wal-Mart delivers, disproportionately to lower-income families, more than offsets any impact that the company has allegedly produced in the earnings of retail workers.
Comment by Backyard Conservative Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 11:20 pm
The study sounds like the Dems don’t want to lose Walmart as a supporter.
If we had to pay higher prices for locally made goods, we wouldn’t buy as much stuff and there would be more US jobs, instead jobs in China.
Alternatively, why not create those low cost manufacturing jobs in less threatening democracies like India?
Does anyone care about Walmart’s role in weakening our long-term national security?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 25, 06 @ 12:05 pm