Now I'm depressed

I read today that Wal-Mart is going to be distributing information on political candidates to its employees. The article in the Star Tribune even listed some DFLers who had spoken at a rally organized by a group called "Wake Up Wal-Mart." This group is backed by unions who want better pay and benefits for Wal-Mart workers. Ohhhh, now I feel happy to be a Republican -- do I have to support Wal-Mart now?

Wal-Mart says it isn't telling people for whom to vote, but wants to let workers know who has said what concerning Wal-Mart.

My hometown of Winona recently had a Wal-Mart move in, and before they did there were a lot of signs that said "NO WAL-MART." I had no sign in my yard because I decided to vote with my money, and I've done pretty well, I think. In the years (has it been years? Did I mention that "recently" is a relative term?) since Wal-Mart opened, I have been there a total of one time. Now I admit that they haven't folded yet from my small protest, but it makes me feel a little better.

I wonder, though, how I would feel if my employer essentially told me who they would like me to vote for? I don't think I'd like it at all. I will be interested to see what the employees of Wal-Mart do.

Why are you opposed to Wal-Mart? Is it their ability to provide low-priced consumer goods to a large population? Their ability to provide jobs that are a step up for most workers in the area where their stores are located? The ability to promote those who cannot afford a higher education to a position higher in the company to middle class?

Or is it the mass hysteria that because they aren't union they are bad? Unions don't fight for employees. This is quite obvious from the airline unions who were quoted as saying "We would rather see them [Northwest Airlines] go bankrupt than accept the new contract." And six months later they went bankrupt, and there is not a single mechanic rehired.

Unions are the drag of the U.S. economy. If you believe that they are good for the U.S., please show me one industry that is showing higher productivity, higher revenues since putting unions in. I can show you many that have dropped (GM ring any bells?).

While I don't enjoy shopping at Wa-Mmart for pure aesthetic reasons, I certainly cannot understand this absolute hatred of a company that benefits the consumers and the areas where they are.

I haven't liked Wal-Mart ever since they started censorship issues with music years and years ago. I also don't like their business practices.

For example, they have been known to close down a store, open another one, but keep the lease on the first store, so no one else can use it. They can do this because their lease for the first store had a percentage of sales paid to the owner of the property. No sales means no money to the property owner.

I know they hadn't done anything illegal, but it was difficult for the town to have a large empty store on "main street." I, as a consumer, have the right to shop where I will. I don't shop at Wal-Mart.

That is simply bad business on the part of the landowner. No one should make contracts of that value and keep no minimum rent clause. However after some searching I can find no mention of this particular scenario being played out anywhere in the U.S.

I do find many instances where Wal-Mart was cited as holding onto their old buildings in efforts to prevent competition, which is smart for them and even better still for the landlord who has to worry nothing about maintainence or repairs, and gets a monthly check.

I have never said that anyone should have to shop at Wal-Mart, although I find the belief that Wal-Mart causes more harm than good absolutely absurd. Prices of consumer goods drop at all surrounding stores when Wal-Mart enters a market. Is that not good for consumers? Is it not a good thing for more people to be able to be employed with a decent, non-minimum wage job with access to health benefits?

There you go again, Ken, stiring up the pot, keeping things interesting.

The purpose of a union is not to increase productivity or revenues of a company. Rather it is to protect workers from being abused by management.

Some accomplishments of organized labor include child labor laws, the eight-hour work week, minimum wages, whistle-blower laws (see Coleen Rowley for Congress), sexual harassment laws (see the third comment on "Foley flounced"), work safety laws, etc.,etc.,

Having said all this, guess who had the most productive workers in the automotive industry since the United Auto Workers organized the car manufacturing industry in 1935? GM and Ford.

Remember Cesar Chavez? Unemployment insurance for farm workers. Whose farmers are the most productive in the world? The US.

There are many examples of how labor unions saved our butts, the working people of America.

I will grant you that there have been, and still are, many abuses among labor leaders, and that the burden of approximately $25 per hour more in cost of a GM manufacturing employee over Toyota has put General Motors in jeopardy. Not all of that falls on the union, however. GM and Ford and Chrysler all caved in to higher and higher wage and benefit contracts during the good times also.

Wal-Mart owes its employees a fair shake. They have been unfair in many ways, for example, they made employees work extra hours off the clock, that is, with out pay. They keep the number of hours that a great number of employees can work under the minimum per-week to avoid covering their health insurance.

Cheeper prices for consumers is good -- at the cost of fair labor practices, bad.

While unions held a place in history you still have yet to show me a healthy industry because of unions. If a union is to protect workers from management, wouldn't that include not being laid off (see NWA mechanics). And while advancements like the 40-hour work week (unless unions really do work an 8-hour work week, then sign me up!), sexual harassment et al, they have made the workers less productive.

Productivity is not simply amount produced, it is an amount produced for a cost. Given an infinite amount of money I could have an infinite productivity.

GM and Ford are not, and have never been, the most productive car companies since unions came around. Productivity under unions has made substantial slippage.

Once auto companies from foreign lands came to America to sell their cars, the ability of Ford and GM to maintain productivity at a cost-efficent rate became impossible. That is why half of each GM car sold goes to GM pension. How much of each Toyota, Hynduai, BMW, Volkswagon and alike go to a pension? In fact, the workers are much better treated at the non-union auto workers than at GM and Ford.

Then you blame GM and Ford for the balooning labor costs. Union contracts have always gone like this:

Union: We want $30 per hour.
Ford/GM: We can't afford that.
Union: Then we go on strike.

It is a pattern no company wants to go through because the loss of money is incredibly huge. Do you remember the strike talks when Ford said it was going to shut down the St Paul plant?

I repeat my challenge. Show me one industry that is healthy because of unions. It isn't possible because there is always a non-union segment that is doing it better, more efficently, and making more money because of it.

Why get all offended if someone doesn't like Wal-Mart? Who cares? Wal-Mart competes on prices, and therefore makes sacrifices on quality, employee compensation, etc.

If some consumers value low prices over corporate behavior, who cares? Likewise, if other consumers value corporate ethics over low prices, let them pay more.

Curiously enough, organic, shade-grown coffee tastes better than the cheap stuff from the big manufacturers. Feel free to make fun of me for spending $10 per pound, and I'll make fun of you for drinking hot water that tastes like burnt cardboard.

My biggest fear of the big boxes is that they will run the little businesses out of business, making it difficult for me to find a bookstore in which to browse, or a coffee shop that's locally owned and operated, or a market that carries local, fresh foods. Sure, for some commodities, I shop on price too, but don't take away my choice when I'm willing to spend more for quality.

I am offended not at people who don't like Wal-Mart, but who go into raging frenzies talking about how terrible a company they are when they are not. People who talk about how they don't want one in their area. Their elitist attitude prevents me from saving money, eliminating a choice for me and everyone else who would rather save some money.

It doesn't matter if you want to spend more money on some things, everyone does. That is your choice, but to say that someone should NOT have the choice to save money because you don't like to is idiotic. Also, shade-grown coffee costs the same as most other Starbucks coffees. Just because you prefer the taste doesn't make you a terrible person.

Also, this talk of big box stores pushing out small business is absurd. It's been talked about since the large chains went into business, and lo and behold, it still has yet to happen. There will always be niche stores for markets that want something the large stores can not provide.