Peter A wrote:

Not masochists, but desperate people who have nowhere else to work
because WalMart has driven other retail stores out of business and
has pushed manufacturing overseas.

The more manufacturing we can push overseas, the better for all of
us. As Adam Smith said (I mentioned him earlier), each country
should do what it does best and when that happens each country
prospers.


Define "best." In terms of China, "best" means simply "cheapest."
Along with the low price you get poison petfood, lead-tainted toys,
terrible environmental damage, workers in near-slavery situations,
etc. To me, that's far from "best."

"Best" means the same or equivalent product for the same or less money.


Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate protectionism just for the sake
of keeping jobs here. When imports are available that are high
quality and produced in a morally and environmentally responsible
fashion, I am all for it.

But what about the people (here) who WANT lower quality (at a lower price)
or who WANT children in Sri Lanka to work for twenty-five cents a day (as
opposed to starving). Rephrase: What about the people HERE who want the
standard of living of ALL countries to improve? Would you deprive them of
the opportunity.

It's difficult to believe that my buying a tennis shoe made by six-year olds
in Bangladesh who work twelve hours a day, six days a week, is improving
their lot -- but it is.



As for "increasing profits," every one of their demonstration stores
runs at a loss for the enviornmental test. For example, they are
attempting to heat the stores with reclaimed grease/oil/something.
There is no way, according to them, they can recover the cost of
installing the system. But it's a learning test.


A test to see if the system can save them money in the long run.

Saving money is good.


You recall that Target evicted the Salvation Army kettle people.
Walmart not
only welcomes them but often donates an employee to ring the bell if
the Army is short-handed.

Good for Target. I dislike any group that makes pushing their religion
on people part of their charity work. In any case, this was all
explained in the press. Target had nothing against the SA per se, but
felt that in fairness they would have to allow all charitable groups
to collect at their stores if they allowed any.

Uh, the SA is a non-prosletysing organization. As for "fairness," phooey.
Target doesn't have to be "fair." Or even courteous.

In my view, there are thing a business should not do, simply because it
offends their potential customers: Burning flags, banishing children,
supporting terrorism, not allowing employees to say "Merry Christmas," and
evicting the Salvation Army. Mind you, I'm not a Christian, but I do respect
and support national traditions.


WalMart's support of a blatantly Christian charity is touching. I
wonder how they would support a Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or atheist
group collecting money at their stores?

Good point. Bottom line: Their store, their rules.



Frankly, you sound like a WalMart stooge. Perhaps you are just
trying to justify your shopping there.

Frankly, you sound like a union goon. Perhaps you resent people
working for an honest day's pay.

If only walMart would let all of its employees do so! Instead it's
forced unpaid overtime, forced off-the-clock work, and gender
discrimination.

How does WalMart treat its employees? When meatpackers at a Texas
store voted to unionize, WalMart closed all of its meatpacking
operations, putting god knows how many employees out of work.

Good. Texas is a right-to-scab state. Most here don't like unions. Maybe
that's why we have 300-odd Walmarts?

My ex-boss once proposed to his boss that their company hire a driver to
distribute the paychecks to the various companies for whom they prepared
payroll instead of being at the mercy of delivery services. Boss said maybe.

Couple of days later, the boss said a representative of the corporation's
president was flying in to discuss the matter.

The representative met with my guy and told him the answer was "No," but
that he deserved an explanation and that the explanation could not be
written down.

The corporation, the representative explained, had over 250,000 employees
and not a one was in a union. A "driver" would be eligible for membership in
the Teamsters and, if there ever was a disagreement, that one employee could
effectively close the entire corporation.

The company for whom my friend worked was SBC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
IBM.

The result was that SBC continued to be at the mercy of drunken or missing
delivery service drivers (who may or may not have been in the Teamsters).

When
employees at a store in Canada voted to unionize, WalMart closed the
store putting everyone out of work.

Yeah, I remember that one. A secret ballot went against the union, so the
union went to plan B: certification cards and the union got a majority with
the card certification method. Walmart closed the store; 160 people out of
work. See, it isn't the difference between $8/hr and $9/hr; it's the
difference between $8/hr and nothing (likewise in Bangladesh: $3/wk or
nothing).

Evidently Walmart doesn't like unions either. Their store, their rules.