Each Walmart Store Costs taxpayers $420,750 annually in social services

[radwriter0555]

costs....

Posted on Tue, Feb. 17, 2004





Miller report hits Wal-Mart 'costs'

By Thomas Peele

CONTRA COSTA TIMES


CONCORD - Colossus retailer Wal-Mart drains government resources because its low-paid, under-insured or non-insured workers have to rely on public subsidies, such as school lunch programs and Section 8 housing, according to a congressional report Rep. George Miller released here Monday.

With supporters of a March ballot measure to ban Wal-Mart superstores and other "big-box" businesses in unincorporated Contra Costa County flanking him, Miller, D-Martinez, ripped the Arkansas-based corporation for creating "downward spirals in communities," violating child labor and workplace safety laws and "paying wages below industry averages."

The report, which the Democratic staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee prepared, estimates that taxpayers bear $420,750 in social services costs for each Wal-Mart store with 200 workers. The company is the nation's largest employer with an estimated 1.2 million employees and more than 3,200 stores.

"Wal-Mart puts a great deal of pressure on its competitors to lower prices," said Miller at a Presidents Day news conference at his district office. "This is about the real price of Wal-Mart."

By not providing health insurance to workers who log less than 34 hours a week, "those workers go to public hospitals and everybody picks up the tab," he said.

Forcing employees to go back to work after punching out at time clocks and locking them inside stores on overnight shifts so they can't leave to seek medical attention also have been commonplace for the company, which Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, said was "built on human misery."


http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/7970996.htm

[GOPisEvil]

1. That's an interesting way of framing the argument.

As I often tell people, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Low prices take their toll in other ways. Either way, you end up footing the bill.

[JanMichael]

2. Plus it's a wage depressor and union buster.

I freakin' hate Wal-Mart. Absolutely despise that store and it's business practices. Oh and it's 10% of China's exports to boot.

It must be either broken up or Democratised from the bottom up to the five leeches at the top.

[trogdor]

93. I remember when they pushed "Made in USA"

Back when Sam was still around, you'd see these signs around Wal*Mart stores touting the purchasing they would do that created and/or saved X number of jobs in the USA. If you shopped in a Wal*Mart store in the 1980's, you'd probably remember.

Now, the slogan I saw on banners at my local Wal*Mart read, "we live here too." NO THEY DON'T! They have this "good works" PR campaign in the stores like Philip Morris where they show how much they care about and support local communities. NO THEY DON'T! If they weren't systematically screwing us all, they wouldn't have to put up this front.

[madrchsod]

3. add to these costs is

the "tax relief" for constructing new wal marts and distribution centers. giving a tax break for x amount of years to the largest company in the world is criminal. i guess the walton family does`nt have enough money....

[outinforce]

4. How's This For An Argument?

Ben and Jerry's cost taxpayers and untold amount in social services.

The argument put forth in the article you link to is basically this: "Walmart could provide its workers more in terms of benefits, but since it does not, the taxpayers must provide those benefits."

An equally valid argument could be made, it seems to me, that Ben and Jerry's by not hiring 50 more employees that it claims it really needs is denying those 50 unhired people benefits of employment (like salary, health insurance, and social security). So, those 50 unhired people must rely on the taxpayers for their income, housing, and health care.

Fie (FIE, I say!) on Ben and Jerry's! They are causing all of us to have to support the people they don't hire!

[JanMichael]

6. Nice try. The scale is what makes this a special case.

Fie! And a pox on Wal-Mart!

[radwriter0555]

7. Ben and Jerry's doesn't go into a suburban area and destroy all the

local businesses by undercutting the shop's toilet paper prices.

They sell a single product.

Walmart sells anything and everything.

Walmart is THE largest employer in the USA, surpassing the US government.

ben and jerry's probably has about 1000 employees total.

No comparison. Try again.

;)

[outinforce]

10. Ben and Jerry's

Sells a single product on a fairly large scale.

Certainly, the scale on which Ben and Jerry's sells its product kis larger than that of any local dairy.

Ben and Jerry's competes, in some markets, with locally-produced dairy products -- much like a large national company competes with a local "mom and pop" operation.

Besides, that's not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread, as I understand it, is that Walmart costs us all money because it doesn't provide benefits to the employees it hires.

My argument is still that Ben and Jerry's costs us all moeny because it only hires the number of employees it seems to think it needs, and not the number of employees that would cost us all less.

[Kolesar]

13. Whenever a Walmart w/ groceries opens, two normal grocery stores fail

The union grocery stores that are paying more and providing employee benefits cannot compete on price, so they fail. (Source: NOW, with Bill Moyers).

[outinforce]

16. Why Don't the "Normal" Grocery Stores

Simply hire the people away from Walmart? I mean, the "normal" grocery stores pay their people more and provide benefits. And one way to ensure that Walmart would be unable to open and to continue in business would be to offer its potential employees a much better salary and benefit package.

The fact that some people choose to be employed by Walmart, even with its lower salaries and inferior benefits packages, tells me that the "normal" grocery stores are simply not doing their jobs when it comes to providing jobs with good salaries and decent benefits to the largest number of people. Instead, those "normal" grocery stores would rather restrict the number of employees they hire (and provide decent salaries and good benefits to), and allow the rest to be recruited by Walmart to work there.

It seems to me that the real culprits (and the ones who are really costing us taxpayers more) are the "normal" grocery stores that fail to employ all of the available labor at a wage and benefit level; adequate to keep Walmart out of town.

[Kolesar]

35. How do the "normal" groc stores restrict the number of employees they hire

I don't see a mechanism here. Further, there is unemployment now, so there will always be plenty of workers applying to work at Walmart for $7.50/hour. There is no way the union grocers could "draw them away".

[davekriss]

52. I suggest you read...

I suggest you read Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital. Then see if you hold to the same point of view.

[Fatima]

248. since when

are "normal" grocery stores obligated to hire all the "available labor" in an area? And how can they afford to?

I'm missing something here I guess.

You have to get enough business to have enough $$$ to hire an employee. If most of your business is going to your competitor (WalMart), how can you afford to "lure" anyone away? You can't. That's how WalMart drives out small local businesses.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

[outinforce]

11. One More Thought

"ben and jerry's probably has about 1000 employees total."

You make my point.

Think of how much we could all save in taxes that go to support section 8 housing, medicaid, and all the other things if only Ben and Jerry's would expand its workforce to 10,000 -- or even 50,000 people and provide them all with a livable wage and full benefits.

[JanMichael]

12. What is your point? That companies aren't responsible for their...

...actions and effects on society? The largest employer in America, Wal-Mart, goes out of it's way to keep wages low, and not provide benefits, which drives employees to use public assistance...This isn't an issue to you?

Sorry but you've lost me here.

[outinforce]

15. Here's the Point

"What is your point? That companies aren't responsible for their actions and effects on society"

I think that if we wish to hold any one company responsible for its actions and its effect on society, then we should hold all companies responsible for their actions.

Ben and Jerry's has made a business decision to employ only so many people and no more. It could, if it wanted to, hire more people. Of course, if it did so, it might have to raise the cost of its product, but that's not really our concern here. By making a business decision not to hire more people, Ben and Jerry's contributes to unemployment and other effects on society. If Ben and Jerry's were to hire twice as many people as it currently employs, and provide all of them with full medical coverage, there would be that mayn fewer people lacking full medical coverage. We should hold Ben and Jerry's responsible for its actions and its effects on society.

See?

[JanMichael]

18. Look, I want a Single Payer Health Plan and Living Wage, so then...

...it'd be a moot point either way now, yes?

My issue with your comments are that they diminish a real and growing problem, and while marginally accurate, don't nullify the original point that WalMart is a goddamned leech on it's Employees and Society as a whole.

Sure, most big corporations can be criticised, yep, that's a fact, but it's not unreasonable to single the biggest meanest mofo out for something that they intentionally set out to do.

See?

[sangh0]

20. That's a point?

Somehow I suspect that no one is going to believe that "not hiring unneeded employees" is the same as "underpaying needed employees"

[outinforce]

24. Care to Explain

Would you care to explain what you see as the difference between ""not hiring unneeded employees" and "underpaying needed employees", specifically as it relates to the costs taxpayers must bear for each of these two business decisions?

[sangh0]

26. Simple

The former doesn't break the "social compact", while the other does.

[outinforce]

28. I'm Afraid

I'm afraid, sangh0, that I still don't get what you are trying to say here.

What "social contract" is being broken?

Who are the parties to that contract? What does it say?

[Pale Blue Dot]

36. Well, if Ben & Jerry's hired more people than it needed

Wouldn't it be unable to earn a profit, therefore making it impossible to pay their creditors, causing them to go into bankruptcy and causing all of their employees to lose their jobs, costing U.S. taxpayers more in unemployment claims and health care?

I find your argument is extremely logically flawed. Funny that you should use Ben & Jerry's as an example, too.

[outinforce]

39. Gee, If Wal-Mart Paid People More Than It Does,

then it might not be able to earn a profit, therefore making it impossible to pay its creditors, causing them to go into bankruptcy and causing all of their employees to lose their jobs, costing U.S. taxpayers more in unemployment claims.

Right?

[Pale Blue Dot]

40. Should maximum profit be the only driving force?

Does it, or should it, make a difference if I make $5 by hiring people cheaply and not paying their health care, if I keep prices low by using overseas slave labor, and if I use those low prices to gain monopoly power?

Or is it better, and nobler, to make $2 by paying people a fair wage, both hear and abroad, and not deliberately crushing all competition, so that you don't actually have to compete anymore.

Maybe you like living in the first world, in which you can save .02 cents on your toilet paper, but for me, it's the recipe for our eventual downfall as a society.

[mondo joe]

45. WalMart Would Still Turn a Profit

Even with better benefits, WalMart would still turn a profit.

No one is suggesting WalMart give away the store. But employing people without paying them the means to live independently is just ripping off the taxpayers.

[outinforce]

64. How About This.....?

"But employing people without paying them the means to live independently is just ripping off the taxpayers."

I think you may have it wrong there, mondo joe.

I think it is more accurate to say, "Accepting employment knowing that it will not provide the means to live independently is just ripping off the taxpayers.

Especially if, by withholding your labor from a company that offers employment at a wage and benefit level that does not permit people to live independently, you could compel that company to offer higher wages or to go out of business.

[terryg11]

67. that may work in some areas

but the problem with that is in some areas especially these smaller towns where Walmart went in, they forced many other stores (which offered living wges) to close by underselling them. granted this isn't all walmart's fault, no one made people shp there but at the same time, walmart had the advantage of having less costs due to their aforementionned strategies. By patronizing walmart as much as they did, many of these areas have reaped what they sowed but alot of this happened before many people knew what was going on.

As far as people working there, yes, it's a choice they make but in some instances it's their only choice. especially when you consider that unemployment while possibly declining is still at a national average of six or seven percent? still not a lot of hiring going on

[outinforce]

69. Still, By Accepting Employment At WalMart,

Still, by accepting employment at Walmart, a person enables Walmart to remain in business and to underpay its staff.

Especially in small towns, I would think. The labor force is only so large in small towns. Walmart, if it wants to stay in business in those small towns, would not be able to survive if people were to say, "We won't work for you unless you pay us a decent wage and provide us with a decent benefit package". If Walmart doesn't do that, and if the potential employees refuse to go to work for WalMart, I would think Walmart would have to go out of business, and then the other stores (which offered living wages) could spring back up and life could go on as it did before WalMart came to town.

Not only that, but think of the savings to the taxpayers if people simply refused to work for Walmart.

[Occulus]

71. Why doesn't anyone ever mention

corporate personhood when discussing this topic and others like it? Without that mechanism, none of what WalMart does would be possible.

[outinforce]

74. Care to Elaborate?

Care to elaborate upon your point, kgfnally?

[JanMichael]

139. Good point and one that T. Jefferson agreed with.

But I'm sure that since it's been around for a while that people simply couldn't wrap their brains around the idea that Corporations are not good "Persons". Oh, and AREN'T PERSONS!

They are inherantly evil, due to having no purpose other that making a profit, as proven by our erstwhile compatriot on this very thread.

OK, maybe not those exact words but close enough.

[outinforce]

142. Gee. Am I "Erstwhile"??

and a compatriot as well?

Are you seriously suggesting that making a profit is somehow "inherently evil"?

Wow.

[terryg11]

72. true only if eeryone stops shopping thre

Walmart's options in such a situation still outplay the potential wokers and shoppers.

WalMart can:

bus workers in

keep store open and make whatever money it can and the company abosrb the losses until something changes

close the store, thus dooming the community until someone fills the void but a startup may be too late due to the time and captal needed, not to mention finding the product to sell at reasonable prices.

the only way walmart would go out of business in an area is if EVERYONE in the area agreed on a set course of action, which while it isn't impossible is very hard to do once they get into an area. best bet is to keep them out so that they don't disrupt the economy.

It is ultimately a choice of the consumers and labor pool but walmart can influence both of those markets quite a bit

[camero]

80. Accepting Employment

When the balance of power is not equal that employment is neither consenting or voluntary. That's like saying the rape victim chose to be raped.

A fallacious argument.

[outinforce]

82. Care To Elaborate, camero?

Would you care to elaborate upon your point, camero?

How is it, exactly, that Walmart forces anyone to accept its offers of employment?

Why is it, exactly, that in any given labor market, Walmart is able to entice people to work for it, when those same people could just as easily go to work, at higher wages, at other grocery stores or at filling stations or at the local Ben and Jerry's outlet?

[camero]

83. Soft labor markets

Force people to take jobs that are below the satisfactory level. The balance of power is shifted to the employer.

Actually in any labor market since it's the employer that chooses when said employee shows up and leaves, when to take bathroom breaks, how much work to do, etc. Therefore it is the employer that has the power. Hence it's the employer's obligation to pay a satisfactory wage.

If it was truely consenting, I would be able to leave after a half days work and still come back tomorrow.

Or do you like rape and exploitation?

On edit: Oh I forgot, the rapist enjoys the rape.

[outinforce]

85. Just so there is no misunderstanding here, camero

I am not a rapist.

And I do NOT appreciate your snide little suggestion that I might be.

Your discussion of power ignore one basic fact -- and that is that you are always free to withhold your labor from any employer. Slavery is illegal in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as well.

If you find the terms of employment ("employee shows up and leaves, when to take bathroom breaks, how much work to do, etc") to be not to your liking, you can always tell your employer that you are severing the employment relationship with him or her.

And if you dislike the wages you are being paid, you can always walk right out the door and get another job elsewhere that pays you what you think you are worth.

The employer has an obligation to pay you what was agreed to before you began work. If you applied for a job that pays $8.00 and hour, then, in exchange for your performance of those duties, the employer has an obligation to pay you $8.00 an hour. You after all accepted employment when you could have remained unemployed or accepted employment elsewhere.

[camero]

88. The employer also sets that wage

When there are no other jobs to be had, the employee has to accept the terms of said contract or starve.

That is exploitation. And the reason I use the rape analogy is because the rapist could very well argue that by arresting him, the gov't is taking his "liberty". It used to be legal to rape your wife.

This is no different.

Edit: BTW, you put my name in the subject line one more time, I'm hitting alert.

[outinforce]

99. Is There Something About Your Name

Is there something about your name, camero, that you happen to find offensive?

It is often the case that people put my screenname in the subject line. I take no offense in it at all.

However, since you apparently find it offensive to see you name on a subject line, I will first of all apologize for using your name in a way that apparently offends you. And I shall no longer put your name in the subject line.

I would grteatly appreciate it if you would stop any references to me as a rapist, someone who advocates rape, someone who is comforatble with rape, or anything similar. Do it once more and I shall hit the alert button, OK?

You argument concerning employment is lame. First of all, I refuse to beleive that Walmart is EVER the "only" employer in a given labor market. There are always others. Second, no one has the choice of "work for Walmart or starve". That's why we provide social programs to assist people who are unemployed.

[camero]

100. It's called calling out another member

Which is against the rules. And these are the very programs that you want to cut. How's that?

Your ignorance is showing.

[outinforce]

103. Please

Please tell me, oh he whose name must not be mentioned, where I have ever advocated cutting any programs.

Your ability to read that which is not there is showing.

[camero]

107. How noble Libertarianism.

How noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners! :eyes:

[outinforce]

112. Call Me a Libertarian Again,

and I hit the alert button.

[camero]

114. Go ahead. Your views are certainly shaping up to be like that.

:D Plus there is quite a difference beteen calling another member out for ridicule than calling them a libertarian.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[reprobate]

195. Don't argue with the fool. He is obviously here to cause trouble.

Just hit alert, like I did.

[camero]

108. Another one that doesn't have a problem with private power.

Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner.
Noam Chomsky

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/quotes.html

[outinforce]

111. What?

"understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner. Noam Chomsky"

Whatever.

Now try going out and getting a job where you are completely free from the control of the manager and owner.

And, if you should decide that you want to be free of the domination and control of a manager and an owner, then you might want to set up your own little business. But don't you dare hire anyone to help you. Because then you will be the owner and the manager. And then you will be dominating and controlling someone else.

[camero]

113. Einstein just loves your capitalism

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil... The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Albert Einstein

[outinforce]

119. And Your Point Is.......?

So many quotations. Chomsky. Einstein.

What is your point?

Is it that the entire system (including not just Walmart but any other employer within the US, Canada, and any other country with an economic system such as ours) is "the real source of evil".

If that is your point, fine. I happen to disagree, but that's one of the great things about life in a bourgeois society such as ours -- we are each entitled to our own opinions.

But if you somehow think that Walmart is different from any other employer, I've yet to hear it. It makes business decisions within the laws of the US, that are designed to maximize its profits. It coerces no one to work for it.

[camero]

120. The market IS the coercer

Just love your "bourgeois" society.

Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM!"

[outinforce]

123. I'm Not an Honest Libertarian

It's not because I'm not honest.

It's because I'm not a libertarian.

So "the market" is the coercer, huh?

So in order for people not to be coerced into accepting dominion and control by managers and owners, I guess you would say that we should abolish "the market".

That sounds like anarchy to me.

And, oh, for an honest anarchist to say, "Yes, in anarchtopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - but we don't have dominion and control by managers and owners!"

[camero]

126. Prove it

Show us what you really believe in. Cause all I'm hearing from you is the so-called "right" of Wally World to set wages.

[outinforce]

131. You Don't Think that any Employer

should be able, as long as s/he abides by the labor laws of this country, set the wages for her/his jobs?

If you are saying that Walmart is breaking the law in offereing jobs at wages that you don't like and with benefits that you think are crummy, then please cite the law that you think Walmart has broken.

I don't hear anyone suggesting that Walmart has broken the law by offereing people food stamp applications as part of their employment packages.

I happen to be a life-long Democrat. And as far as I know, Democrats favor a minimum-wage law. But there is one, and Walmart abides by it, as far as I know.

And I do think that most Democrats would say that while employers should pay fair wages, an company (even Wally World) has the right to set wages at or above the minimum wage.

So I really don't see how advocating Wally World's right to set wages (as long as the wage is at least at the minimum wage) makes me a libertarian.

[camero]

133. If that wage is below subsistance level.

Yes, they don't have a right to starve thier help or make them grovel for charity.

[outinforce]

136. Here's A Thought

Why don't you petition Congress to raise the minimum wage?

Or to establish a "living wage"?

Until then, Walmart (and any other employer) has the right to set the wages for jobs they have at the minimum wage.

Sorry, but I think that's the way things work here in the US.

[camero]

137. And why don't you?

Not if they have to grovel for charity.

[outinforce]

140. Two Things

You makwe a lot of unwarranted assumptions.

You have, I think, assumed that I do not campaign for higher minmimum wage laws and better living conditions for people.

You assume incorrectly. You assume that because I make an argument here on DU that I am uncaring towards the poor.

If you have made that assumption, you are just wrong. You jumped to a conclusion about me, and it was in error.

Second, I don't happen to think that applying for food stamps or applying for any other benefit that the government offers is "groveling" for charity.

I know people who do think that -- they are typically people who look down their noses at people who are down on their luck.

I find that one thing that is terribly difficult when trying to assist poor folks in applying for benefits is the notion that some in our society like to telegraph to poor people -- that applying for government benefits is "groveling for charity".

[camero]

150. Obviously you've never had to

:eyes:

[outinforce]

154. Yet One More

unwarranted assumption from you, oh he whose name must not be mentioned!

That's, what, six or seven on just this thread.

Isn't it?

[camero]

155. Well since you seem to take the side of the slavemaster so much

What else am I to think?

[outinforce]

156. Putting "You" and "slavemaster" in your subject line

is OK for you to do, but I can't put your screen name in my subject line, because that might cause you to have to defend what you have posted?

Have a nice life.

[camero]

159. Take the side

You left that out, How convenient? :eyes:

[YNGW]

157. I'll be straight with you...

... I've read this whole thread, and I don't see outinforce saying what you say he's saying. I think you're so into this you've got him saying stuff he isn't. Honestly guy, I really do. Back up for a moment and take a breath. :)

Wal-Mart should follow the current laws, we can all agree, and if they don't they need to pay the penalty. But as long as they are following current wage laws regarding minimum wage, etc... then they have the right to exist. If you don't want to work for them, no one is holding a gun to your head.

How many years ago was it that K-Mart was the big retailer like Wal-mart is now? Didn't they file bankruptcy a few years ago?

Someday, someone's going to come along that does it better than Wal-Mart is doing it now and Wal-Mart will go under. It's the way of the market. The car was invented and suddenly horse-drawn buggies went ka-put. Someday it'll be something else.

And in the meanwhile, just like it has been from the beginning of time, you'll always have those who are the hierarchy and those who are not. Quite frankly, I don't see mankind changing a whole lot anytime soon. I know that upsets some, and certainly anything we can do to make things better is good. But, I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel at this moment in history.

Just an opinion.

[camero]

160. Hmm.

And somehow blaming the victim for thier plight is ok? Yes?

[YNGW]

163. Blaming the victim????

>And somehow blaming the victim for thier plight is ok? Yes?

I'm not blaming anyone so where you grabbed on that I'll never know. If I wanted to say "blaming the victim" I would have said "blaming the victim". That's right, you would have actually seen the words "blaming the victim" in my post. You'd have no doubt about what I meant. I don't mince words. But I didn't. That's because I didn't say it. Don't put words in my mouth. It's wrong. It's tactless. It's out of form. Shame on you.

I'm just pointing out that history overwhelmingly demonstrates that what's happening now has been the way it has been for a long time. I didn't write history, it happened before you and I were born. Hierarchy has been in place and it will likely continue. To deny it is to deny history. To change it would be a good thing, but the prospects of that happening aren't looking so great. Really. Open a window and look around.

Now, you either talk to me with respect, or forget it. Capache?

[camero]

164. You said, "Noone is holding a gun to thier head."

Ah, maybe not, But they are keeping food out of thier mouths. There's more than one way to skin a cat you know.

And I just asked your opinion to my question. If you think that is disrespectful, then put me on ignore. Capiche?

[YNGW]

167. OK

>Ah, maybe not, But they are keeping food out of thier mouths. There's more than one way to skin a cat you know.

But it's not the only place they can work.

That's the rub. You've got to convince people that Wal-Mart is the only choice these people have when it comes to employment.

Good Luck.

[pnb]

221. Wal-Mart is not keeping food out of their mouths

They are keeping food out of their own mouths by CHOOSING to work there.

I eat well, in part, because I chose not to work at Wal-Mart.

[Pithlet]

223. Good for you.

It's good to feel superior in the knowledge that you aren't one of them, isn't it? It's much easier not to care about the plight of others if you can blame THEM for it, isn't it?

Before you jump on me, go back and read your post. Because that is exactly what it sounds like you're saying.

[Andromeda]

204. Just have to jump in here....

I don't know what you're smoking but nobody is "blaming the victim" because there is no victim here - just a difference in opinion. Some people might take exception to your assumption that all WalMart employees are "victims." Maybe some are and maybe most aren't. Ever stopped to consider that? Don't assume something without facts to back it up.

[camero]

132. Strawman argument

I wish to say that corps should be under regulation. And should be made to pay thier employees a fair wage. That's not necessarily anarchy.

[revcarol]

242. "Get a job elsewhere that pays you what you think you are worth"?????

Try that in Grant County New Mexico where the unemployment rate is 30%, that's THIRTY PER CENT!!

We had 200 people show up for one part-time job at the Dollar Store.

[Pithlet]

243. It's nuts, isn't it?

Some people prefer working in jobs where they are underpaid, and get no benefits. Didn't you know that?

[scottxyz]

247. 'Outinforce' gem #1

"Still, by accepting employment at Walmart, a person enables Walmart to remain in business and to underpay its staff."

It's those damn underpaid workers' fault! Those enablers who enable Wal-Mart to stay in business.

I wouldn't call you a rapist, 'outinforce'. But if cut a nice figure I bet you could get a job on Fox!

[yankeedem]

49. The "social contract" is

That people working full-time for a profitable employer should not have to be wards of the state (as to housing assistance, food stamps, health care, etc.)

It is also known as "the right thing to do", in other words, something Walmart has no interest in doing.

Noone is subsidizing Ben and Jerry employees so that Ben and Jerry's can squeeze an extra penny profit on each pint of ice cream.

On the other hand, taxpayers ARE subsidizing Walmart employees.

Heres an analogy. I have two kids. I treat them well, but do not adopt a third. That child lives in a state orphanage.

The neighbor has three kids. They abuse them daily, requiring the state to spend resources on their rehabilitation.

According to you, I am just as bad a parent as the abuser. Sorry, no sale.

[JanMichael]

56. Can you BELIEVE that we're having this conversation?

It's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read here in ages.

Ben and Jerry's is worse that WalMart because they don't hire more people...

"Free Market" libertarian "thought", or what ever the hell is driving this crap, cannot be reasoned with.

[Lars39]

57. Progressive sites

seem to attract *burr under the saddle* types, it seems. I've wondered if it's just ego-feeding or another round of *busy work*.
:shrug:

[sangh0]

66. Yes, I believe it

but then again, I never assumed that "liberal" meant "knowledgeable" or the "DUer" meant "liberal"

[outinforce]

61. Social Contracts, Etc.....

I could just as easily say that the social contract is that people do not take jobs which will require them to be wards of the state. In other words, why is it that the people who willingly take the jobs with the low salaries and benefits that Walmart offers -- why are they not the ones breaking the social contract.

It is, after all, their actions (accepting employment that does not pay them enough) that cuases you and me to subsidize them. All Walmart does is offer employment. It forces no one to accept the employment it offers. And I could reasonably argue that it is the people who accept the low-paying jobs that Walmart offers that keep Walmart in business and also allow Walmart to pay crummy wages.

To modify your analogy slightly, it would be like this: You offer foster care to children, and you make it known that children that come to live with you will be taken care of and not beaten.

YOu neighboer also offers foster care, but she makes it known that children that come to live with her will have to apply for foodstamps and will be mistreated.

Who's to blame if some children, knowing the coniditons both you and your neighbor offer, willing accept foster care from your neighbor, causing the rest of us to subsidize the abuse?

[sangh0]

65. Here's why

the contract places obligations on both parties to the agreement

1) The employees obligation is to perform the work in a satisfactory manner

2) The employer's obligation is to pay the employee enough that they don't need govt assistance.

on edit: BTW, orphaned children don't get to decide where they are placed. It's no surprise that those who don't know the basics, like the social contract, would think otherwise.

And contracts based on illegal activities, such as child abuse and mistreatment, are null and void.

[outinforce]

68. Which Contract?

I'm confused here, sangh0.

You obviously have a much greater knowledge of contracts in general, the social contract more specifically, and the mechanisms involved in placing orphaned children, than I do, so I do hope that you wil bear with me here and tolerate a few more questions.

When you say: "The contract places obligations on both parties to the agreement

1) The employees obligation is to perform the work in a satisfactory manner

2) The employer's obligation is to pay the employee enough that they don't need govt assistance.",

are you talking about the social contract or the employment contract?

My limited understanding of employment contracts is that they impose upon the employee the obligation to perform the agreed-upon duties in a satisfactory manner. And they also impose upon the employer the obligation to pay the agreed-upon salary and to provide the agreed-upion benefits package.

If you are speaking of the employment contract between Walmart and its employees, then I think I would be correct in saying that the nature of that contract would be that Walmart employees agree to perfrom certain duties in a satisfactory manner, and Walmart agrees to pay them the salary and benefits package it offered at the time it offered employment.

If you are talking instead about the social contract, I think you may have left something out. If I accept employment knowing that the conditions an employer is offering me will require me to receive a subsidy from the rest of society, am I not breaking the social contract by accepting such an offer of employment?

[sangh0]

70. Q:"Which Contract?" --- A: The Social Contract

are you talking about the social contract or the employment contract?

The Social Contract, whose name is supposed to inform you that it is neither a business contract, nor a legal contract.

If you are talking instead about the social contract, I think you may have left something out. If I accept employment knowing that the conditions an employer is offering me will require me to receive a subsidy from the rest of society, am I not breaking the social contract by accepting such an offer of employment?

No, the Social Contract makes no obligation for the employee to ensure a level of pay that results in no need for govt assistance. That's an obligation the Social Contract places on the employer.

[outinforce]

76. So you are saying .....

So you are saying that there is a social contract that obliges employers to ensure that any of its employees is paid at a level (and given a benefit package, too, I take it) such that there would be no need to governmental assistance?

Does that mean, then that the social contract would suggest that we could do away with any government-supported day care centers for people who work? My employer provides me with free (at no cost to me) subway tokens. I get to commute into and out from work on the subway system for free -- and I do not even have to declare this benefit as income on my fedral or state income taxes! Is my emplyer violating the social contract, since the cost of those subway tokens is picked up by the rest of society?

And I still do not see why it is that people who knowingly accept employment that requires them to go onto the dole do no violate this social contract of which you speak. Could you explain why that is for me in a little m ore detail? Please.

[sangh0]

79. Not quite

So you are saying that there is a social contract that obliges employers to ensure that any of its employees is paid at a level (and given a benefit package, too, I take it) such that there would be no need to governmental assistance?

The most important thing to realize is that this is a Social Contract and not a legal one. Therefore, as far as the law is concerned, no one is legally obligated to do anything. Therefore, the Social Contract ensures nothing unless the parties involved are committed to respecting the Social Contract. Aside from that though, you seem to have the basic premise of the Social Contract so long as you change "governmental assistance" to "governmental support" to distinguish between things like welfare and business subsidies, etc.

Does that mean, then that the social contract would suggest that we could do away with any government-supported day care centers for people who work?

No, the Social Contract is between the employer and the employed, and does not affect the govt's responsibilities. It also does not limit the freedom or impose burdens on those who choose to work instead of staying home to watch the kids. If the Social Contract worked perfectly, and if this was a perfect world, you might argue that there would be no NEED for such a govt program but, on the other hand, the govt has many programs which are not NEEDED, but merely beneficial. "Need" is not required to justify a govt program.

Is my emplyer violating the social contract, since the cost of those subway tokens is picked up by the rest of society?

No, and I don't understand why you would even ask. It's really very simple - a day's pay for a day's work. Nothing else is implied by this. The only implications are the ones you are diligently trying to locate.


And I still do not see why it is that people who knowingly accept employment that requires them to go onto the dole do no violate this social contract of which you speak. Could you explain why that is for me in a little m ore detail? Please.

There's no detail to go into. The obligation to pay employees enough to support themselves and their families is on the employer, and not the employee, no matter how you try to say otherwise.

[outinforce]

84. I Think I Understand It All Now

I think that I understand it all now, sangh0.

You get to define the social contract in whatever way you want to. And I get to define it in whatever way I want to.

The way I define the social contract is like this: People and companies are free to offer employment to people. There are laws which describe the conditions of employment that any employer must abide by. But, if those conditions (such as minimum wage, etc) are met, then the employer is free to offer employment at whatever wage the employer feels necessary to attract qualfied employees and to remain in business. People who see these offers of employment are free to either aceept them or to reject them in favor of being unempployed or in favor of accepting employment with employers who offer higher wages or bettwe benefits.

A person who knowingly accepts a job with an employer whose salary offer obliges the person to accept public assistance has broken the social contract.

I understand the way you define the social contract, and that's fine -- for you. I hope you understand that since you get to define the social contract in a way that makes sense to you, I get to do the same thing.

[sangh0]

87. Nope, you missed it all

People and corporations are free to enter into any agreement they wish to, so long as it involves lawful activities. There is no legal obligation to observe the Social Contract. What you describe is the law, and not the Social Contract.

I understand the way you define the social contract...

I appreciate the flattery but I did not invent or define the Social Contract. It was defined long before either of us was born. Try Google.

[sangh0]

90. In case you're actually interested

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm

"THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT
by Jean Jacques Rousseau
1762"

It turns out that "my definition" of the Social Contract was defined in 1762, almost 200 years before I was born. I guess I'm pretty talented, eh?

[outinforce]

101. Oh. THAT Social Contract

You mean Jean Jacques Rosseau's philosophiocal construct.

Thanks for the link, but I have read -- in both English and French -- what JJR had to say about social contracts.

And I confess I do not recall him ever saying anything like: "The obligation to pay employees enough to support themselves and their families is on the employer, and not the employee, no matter how you try to say otherwise."

Perhaps you could give me the citation where he says this?

Otherwise, I'm afraid that if you get to interpret what JJR had to say concerning the obligations imposed by the social contract upon employees and employers in the 21st century, then I get to do the same thing.

[sangh0]

105. here ya go

"To say that a man gives himself gratuitously, is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is null and illegitimate, from the mere fact that he who does it is out of his mind"

To work for less than it takes to support oneself is to "give oneself gratuitously"

[outinforce]

116. That Would Mean

that anyone who works for Walmart is out of their mind.

The implication of what you are saying, of course, is that we should, in order to protect those poor unfortunates who are not in their right mind, and who, because they are not in their right minds, accept employment at Walmarts, forbid anyone from working at Walmart. Better, I suppose, for all of us to feed, house, and clothe those people who are "out of their minds" than to have them accept employment at Walmart.

Do I understand your interpretation of JJR correctly?

[sangh0]

118. No it wouldn't

You haven't paid much attention to JJR and how his philosophy depends on his view of people's interests. You also have little tolerance for the use of hyperbole. (Hint: JJR was not a psychiatrist)

[outinforce]

121. It was JJR

who, in the quotation you provided, said that anyone who offered himself grauitously, would, by that very action, demonstrate that he was out of his mind.

Are you suggesting that JJR was using hyperbole when he wrote that? I don't think he was -- I think he truly believed that anyone who would do such a thing (against his own interest, I might add) would truly have to be "out of his mind".

And I think that JJR would agree that in most cases an individual is the best judge of where his or her interests lie. And that is why I think he might suggest that a person who, after reading a contract offered by a potential employer, and who could freely elect or not elect to give his labor over to the employer in exchange for a freely-negotiated price, could be said to be acting in his or her interests, even if it s not a job or not a wage that you or I might accept.

[sangh0]

122. Then why have child labor and minimum wage laws?

After all, those children and low-wage/skill workers can just decline the job offer.

[outinforce]

125. Are You Suggesting that what Walmart is doing

IS illegal?

Or are you suggesting that what Walmart is doing should be illegal?

I might suggest that we ought to criminalize accepting employment from an employer, if accepting the wage and benefits package offered causes a person to need to apply for government benefits.

[camero]

128. I would think that

Locking employees inside the store and employing illegal immigrants is illegal. :eyes:

[outinforce]

134. Well, Of Course

Employing illegal aliens is illegal.

Who ever said it was not?

And, depending upon the circumstances, locking employees inside a store may or may not be illegal. (If I voluntarily remain past the time my employer locks the doors to the building I work in, I may find myself in a building where the doors are locked. But my employer hss done nothing illegal there).

What has either of those things to do with how Walmart sets wages for people legaly in the US?

[camero]

135. How about reckless endangerment.

How do the employees get out in a fire hmmmm? :eyes:

[outinforce]

138. I Guess

they would have to push on the "emergency exit bar" on the doors that all stores are pretty much required to have.

Of course, the exact mode of emergency exit would be dictated by local law and regulation.

[camero]

141. Other Wal-Mart Illegal acts

http://www.now.org/issues/wfw/wm-legal.html

In California, Wal-Mart is sued for sex discrimination, allegedly showing inequality in women's pay, compensation, and promotion. Seventy-two percent of Wal-Mart's hourly workers are women, but only one-third of the managers and supervisors are women.

In Alabama, the EEOC sues Wal-Mart for violating a federal civil rights law when it failed to prevent the sexual harassment of women by a co-worker at the Mobile, Alabama store.

In Washington, former Wal-Mart employees have joined with employees from at least 12 other states to sue Wal-Mart for not paying overtime. Wal-Mart is accused of locking workers in the store for hours, without pay, until managers had completed checks of every department. Workers say they complied because of threats that they would be fired.

In Minnesota three black shoppers sued Wal-Mart after they were mistaken for robbers and arrested outside the store after making their purchase. They were handcuffed, forced on the ground, and searched for weapons. An employee had called 911 to report "suspicious black males." The three men were totally confused and feared for their lives.

In Arizona, Wal-Mart was fined $750,000 for violating the ADA after denying ADA rights to deaf applicants.


Ther's more if you wanna see them.

[outinforce]

144. This Relates to the Wages Offered by

Walmart, how?

Except for the case you cite about possible discrimination in setting pay, none of the caes has to do with establishing base pay.

I'm not quite sure about the point you are trying to make here.

[camero]

145. They are illegal acts.

That's how they pertain to wages.

[outinforce]

148. You've Lost Me.

The fact that Walmart has been sued for violating the ADA and for harrasing Black patrons is related to how it sets base wages and benefits for its employees how? Because Walmart does something illegal, we are supposed to draw an inference about its wages?

Huh?

[camero]

149. If they fail to pay overtime

That's an illegal act don't you think?

[YNGW]

146. Just out of interest...

... are you suggesting that anarchy as a way of life is a better way?

It would seem that Spain 1936 demonstrated the vulnerabilities and unsustainability of anarchy.

[camero]

147. Libertarians are the real anarchists

I am calling for regulation of corporations. Why does everyone think following the law and treating people decent are anarchy? Sheesh.

Strawman arguments again, eh?

[YNGW]

151. Don't be so touchy

>Why does everyone think following the law and treating people decent are anarchy?

Good to know what "everybody thinks". How many more you want to label?

I was just asking if you were advocating anarchy. Sheesh.

>I am calling for regulation of corporations.

Corporations are regulated. You just want it done in a differnt way. How do you feel about nationalizing all industry?

[camero]

153. No, I'm not advocating anarchy

But I do think that they are not regulated now for the most part and Nationalizing industry won't help either. Better to see them as entities and not persons.

It's the free-marketeers that advocate anarchy, or better yet, "lawless markets".

[camero]

143. More

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/24-01132004-226119.html

An internal audit of about 25,000 workers at Wal-Mart Stores found thousands of labor violations, including minors working during school hours and workers not taking breaks or lunches, a newspaper reported.

The audit found 1,371 violations of child-labor laws, including minors working too late, too many hours in a day or during school hours. On more than 60,000 occasions, workers missed breaks and on 16,000 they skipped meal times, in violation of most state labor regulation.



Their own analysis confirms that they have a pattern and practice of making their employees work through their breaks and lunch on a regular basis," James Finberg, a lawyer who has worked on several lawsuits against the company, told the Times. "What this audit shows is against their own company policy and against the law in almost every state in which they operate."

and more: http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-14-01.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Judge William D. Browning of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona has held Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in contempt of court and ordered the nation's largest retailer to pay $750,200 in fines, produce and air an explanatory television advertisement, and provide significant remedial relief. The Court Order charges Wal-Mart with failing to comply with a Consent Decree settling an EEOC lawsuit on behalf of two hearing-impaired employees under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).



It is extremely troubling that one of the nation's largest employers continues to show a reckless disregard for the statutory rights of individuals with disabilities," said Commission Chairwoman Ida L. Castro. "These far-reaching court sanctions should put Wal-Mart on notice to invest its vast resources in rooting out discrimination at their stores rather than stringing along plaintiffs with agreements they do not intend to fulfill. Employers would be well served to voluntarily review their workplace practices and ensure compliance with the EEO laws."


Title I of the ADA prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, discharge, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms and conditions of employment. In addition to enforcing the ADA, EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on its Web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.

[sangh0]

158. outinforce, Answer the question

Asking a question in response to a question is the oldest dodge in the book. You said that individuals are best qualified to determine their own best interests, and in response I asked:

Then why have child labor and minimum wage laws?

[outinforce]

162. IIRC, we were dicsussing JJR

and what I said wasw, "And I think that JJR would agree that in most cases an individual is the best judge of where his or her interests lie."

That being the case, I'm not sure what JJR would say about child labor and minimum wage laws.

I'll have to go back and do some more reading, I guess.

What is your view of what JJR would have to say about child labor and minimum wage laws?

on edit: I am not at all bothered, sangh0, that you used my name in your subject line. You should be aware, however, that there is at least one poster on this thread who considers doing that (putting another person's name in the subject line) as "calling a person out". That person threatened to hit the alert button if I put his/her name in any subject lines. Word to the wise.....

[sangh0]

165. You're not sure???

I thought that "Thanks for the link, but I have read -- in both English and French -- what JJR had to say about social contracts"

What JJR wrote specifically and explicitely addresses the role of the state in enforcing contracts. You seem to know JJR when it supports your arguments, but the parts of JJR that don't support you have mysteriously exited from your memory

[outinforce]

168. I'm Not Sure!!!!!

That's right, sangh0, I'm not sure.

I'm just sort of wondering why you took the time to ask me if I'm not sure. I thought my earlier post was pretty clear about that.

If I were uncharitable, I might suggest that you were motivated by a desire to gloat.

But it must be that my earlier post, in which I said that I was unsure, was unclear.

And I don't feel like being incited to post something I don't recall, thanks just the same.

Is that clear?

[sangh0]

169. What's not clear

is how you can be so sure that individuals are the one's best able to determine their own best interests without having considered situations where that is obviously untrue. Your position doesn't seem very well though out, now does it?

And if I were uncharitable, I'd suggest your belief in the effectiveness of individual decisions is extremely conservative and libertarian.

But it must be that my earlier post was unclear, so I'll try to clarify. You've contradicted yourself. You claim to be familiar with JJR, having read it twice, while at the same time admitting no knowledge of what JJR had to say about this issue.

And I don't feel like being incited to post something I don't recall, thanks just the same.

And yet you said you did recall reading JJR's "Social Contract" twice. Now you don't recall.

[outinforce]

172. For Heaven's Sake!

I don't believe I have ever stated on this thread my own personal belief concerning whether an individual is or is not the person best suited to determine his or her own interests.

What I do recall stating is what I thought JJR stated concerning that issue. Because what we were discussing, at that time, was JJR and his book, "The Social Contract".

I thought I was quite clear when I stated that I thought that JJR held the position that an individual was best suited to determine her/his best interests.

So I am really unclear as to why it is, sangh0, that you keep repeating that this is MY position. I have not stated my own opinion on this matter -- I have only stated what I thought was JJR's opinion on the matter.

And I really see no contradiction in what I have said concerning the depth of my knowledge of the Social Contract. I have read it in both English and French, but I do confess to not having memorized every word and having committed to memory each and every argument.

What is your point in continuing this conversation with me? I have already said I don't recall what JJR had to say regarding laws such as the minimum wage or child labor laws. What more do you want me to say?

Is there something I can say so that your apparent desire to prove how much more knowledgable -- or more liberal, I'm not sure which -- you are than I will be sated?

[sangh0]

174. Heaven's to Betsy!!

I thought I was quite clear when I stated that I thought that JJR held the position that an individual was best suited to determine her/his best interests.

Quite clear, and quite wrong. If you had even tried to answer the question I asked about child labor laws, etc, you might have discovered the fallacy you have put to use.

And I really see no contradiction in what I have said concerning the depth of my knowledge of the Social Contract. I have read it in both English and French, but I do confess to not having memorized every word and having committed to memory each and every argument.

The role of govt in these matters is a central part of JJR's philosophy. I don't see how you could have read it without understanding anything about that. Pulling a phrase from his writings to support your argument, while ignoring the rest (which doesn't support your argument) seems as intellectually dishonest as implying that the Social Contract was something that *I* defined.

What is your point in continuing this conversation with me? I have already said I don't recall what JJR had to say regarding laws such as the minimum wage or child labor laws. What more do you want me to say?

Your argument is also based on the idea that people are free to pursue their own best interests, whether you do or do not realize this. That's why the issue of a Social Contract was raised in the first place.

Is there something I can say so that your apparent desire to prove how much more knowledgable -- or more liberal, I'm not sure which -- you are than I will be sated?

Yes, you could explain where you got the odd idea that businesses are responsible for those they DIDN'T hire. It's your argument, and you have yet to defend it. All you do is repeat it.

[outinforce]

178. Here.....

"Is there something I can say so that your apparent desire to prove how much more knowledgable -- or more liberal, I'm not sure which -- you are than I will be sated?

Yes, you could explain where you got the odd idea that businesses are responsible for those they DIDN'T hire. It's your argument, and you have yet to defend it."

Where did I get the odd idea that business are responsible for those they didn't hire?

Simple.

From the same place someone got the notion that a business is responsible for pay and benefits they did not give.

The initial post in this thread used the argument: Since Walmart does not pay its employees "enough" (whatever "enough" means), then the taxpayers must pick up the rest.

All I suggested was that argument could be used, not just with regard to wages and benefits not paid, but also with regard to employees not hired.

How this all related to the social contract is something I'm not sure you've fully explained, despite my repeated efforts to get you to do so. You at one point refused to provide any details, saying simply something like, "No details are necessary." You then went on to repeat, without defending, an opinion you had stated earlier.

I confess to being even more baffled as to how you think this relates to "the idea that people are free to pursue their own best interests".

In truth, I wonder how closely you have read any of my posts. You seem to accuse me of "Pulling a phrase from <JJR's> writings to support <my> argument", but I do not recall citing any phrase from JJR. I merely commented on a couple of sentences that you had pulled from the writings of JJR.

[sangh0]

182. That's not an explanation. It's just a repitition

The initial post in this thread used the argument: Since Walmart does not pay its employees "enough" (whatever "enough" means), then the taxpayers must pick up the rest.

All I suggested was that argument could be used, not just with regard to wages and benefits not paid, but also with regard to employees not hired.

Untrue. You did more than suggest. You have repeatedly asserted that this argument applies to employees not hired, but you have yet to EXPLAIN why it is appropriate to substitute "wages and benefits not paid" with "employees not hired". (And if you want to know why it's inappropriate, it's because the Social Contract does not apply to "employees not hired". It does apply to "wages and benefits, both paid and not paid"

How this all related to the social contract is something I'm not sure you've fully explained

The Social Contract requires employers to pay full-time employees enough so that they do not require govt assistance. The SC places no obligation on employers for those they have not employed. The SC places responsibility for those on the govt.

And you haven't asked me how the SC relates to this argument. You did ask me what the SC was and what it said.

In truth, I wonder how closely you have read any of my posts. You seem to accuse me of "Pulling a phrase from <JJR's> writings to support <my> argument", but I do not recall citing any phrase from JJR. I merely commented on a couple of sentences that you had pulled from the writings of JJR.

Untrue. You also used JJR's words to make an argument about an employer's responsibility for those who were "out of their minds" That was YOUR argument, and you used JJR's words to support it.

[camero]

110. So anarcho-capitalism is the way?

Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defense associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed.

[pnb]

224. The social contract is an abstract invention

The only contract that matters here is that between employer and employee. There is no way to pretend that it is a "real" contract that anyone is bound by. Its basically someone's idea of a nice society, nothing more.

[Pithlet]

89. What are they supposed to do?

When that is the only employment they can get? Would you prefer that they rely on welfare solely? They can't, due to welfare "reform". Giant corporation vs. people who need to feed themselves and their families, and put a roof over their heads. Who is more powerful?

How dare those people be desperate for jobs? How dare those kids be parentless? I don't understand that. Look, foster kids don't get to pick and choose at some parent store, in case you were hoping to use that analogy in the future.

[outinforce]

129. You Tell Me

You tell me what they are supposed to do.

If the only employment they are able to get is with Walmart, and the alternative is no employment at all, you tell me what you would have them do.

[Pithlet]

171. You're turning this back on me.

YOU are the one who stated that no one is forcing them to work there, as if they have a broad range of different jobs and pay scales to choose from. You say they don't have to work there if they don't want to. You used a weak analogy of children picking their foster parents, which didn't help.

I would have them work wherever they can find it. And I would have major corporations with huge profits to pay them a living wage so that taxpayers don't have to take up the slack.

You seem hung up on laws. Because they can legally get away with it, it's okay, because the workers don't have to work there. I'm not talking about laws. I know that minimum wage is legal. But, it isn't enough. And until it is, places like Wal-Mart, who undercut everyone else out of business so that they're pretty much the only one's in town and then offer shitty wages because there's no one else for that level of employment to offer any better. Then they turn around and portray themselves as benefactors to the communities they service, and hoodwink people into thinking that they're all about American values.

There are people like you who say that is just great! All they're doing is turning a profit, what is so wrong with that?

I say that taking advantage of poor minimum wage laws and getting a discount on their employees leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab, when they could just as easily pay them better, and provide them with benefits, and still turn a profit. We aren't talking about a small business. We are talking about the largest employer in the country. When THEY won't even pay honest wages for an honest day's work, what does that tell you? Instead of blaming the employees who choose to put a roof over their heads, why not lay the blame at the largest employer taking advantage of us all?

Bottom line is, Wal-Mart gives medical benefits and better pay to their employees, we ALL benefit. It makes no sense to blame the employees, who are going to work there anyway.

[outinforce]

173. Do You Ever HIre Anyone?

I'm not sure about your own situation, so let me ask if you have ever been in the position to hire someone.

Maybe someone to come in and look after you kids. Or perhaps someone to shovel the snow from your sidewalk.

How do you decide how much to pay a person to do those things?

If the amount you want to pay seems too low to the person, what do you do? Do you raise the price you are willing to pay in order to have someone do whatever task it is you need to have done? Or do you look for someone else who might be more likely to do the work at a lower price?

Or do you set the price you are willing to pay so that the person, instead of having to shovel ten sidewalks in order to provide meals that night for her/his spouse and children, only has to shovel yours? Do you pay a "living wage" when it comes to tasks you want to have done? Or do you pay what you think is reasonable and hope you can find someone who is willing to do the job?

[sangh0]

176. I've hired many people

and I would never hire them for less than a living wage or, if it's part-time or temp, then at an hourly rate that comes out to a living wage when multiplied by forty.

Anything else is immoral.

[outinforce]

181. Good for You

How did you calculate what, exactly, a "living wage" was? Did it depend upon the person's circumstances?

And why do you feel the need to multiply anything by forty? I know that there are normally forty hours in a workweek, but couldn't someone suggest that a real "living wage" would not require the person you hire to work 40 hours?

I could, I think, argue that the truly moral thing to do, in terms of paying someone to do some work -- like say, shoveling snow from a sidewalk -- would be to pay her/him "enough" so that s/he would only need to shovel my walk and could return home for the rest of the week.

Of course, that would mean that I would have to pay someone something like $500 to shovel may walk -- a task I can do myself in 15-20 minutes. But, hey, if I can afford to pay someone a "living wage", I'm obliged to do it, right?

I really do not see why, if a "living wage" is what you think employers must pay in order to be "moral", you would pay your part-timers an hourly rate which, when multiplied by 40, becomes a living wage. Shouldn't they be able to live off of what you pay them, without the need to get another job?

[sangh0]

183. "Living wages" are calculated by a number of organizations

including the US govt. Basically, I guesstimate by doubling the income needed to be considered poor in the US and then dividing it by 2080 (52 weeks times 40 hours)

And why do you feel the need to multiply anything by forty? I know that there are normally forty hours in a workweek, but couldn't someone suggest that a real "living wage" would not require the person you hire to work 40 hours?

Living wages are calculated on the basis of a forty hour workweek.


I really do not see why, if a "living wage" is what you think employers must pay in order to be "moral", you would pay your part-timers an hourly rate which, when multiplied by 40, becomes a living wage. Shouldn't they be able to live off of what you pay them, without the need to get another job?

No, and I've never met anyone who thought otherwise until now.

[Pithlet]

197. I'm not a multi-million dollar corporation

Who is undercutting and putting out other businesses narrowing the choices that workers have so I can take advantage. I am not Wal-Mart. If I were on the same scale as Wal-Mart, I would do things very differently.

But, to answer your question, if I had a business, and had to hire people, I would pay as close to the living wage as I could. If I could not afford to do so, I would rethink how I run my business. I don't have the resources that Wal-Mart does. More than likely, I can't bargain or cheat vendors because I'm not a huge corporation that they rely on chiefly for their business.

[scottxyz]

245. "Not hiring" is VERY different from "underpaying"

If you're not hired, you don't have to show up.

In fact, you can go somewhere else and find a job.

If you're hired but underpaid at a union-busting company that doesn't provide benefits and pays so little you need foodstamps - that's not so different from slavery.

I believe the "social contract" that's being broken here - which 'outinforce' pretends not to see - is that old notion that YOU SHOULD BE PAID FOR WORKING.

Never heard of that "social contract" 'outinforce'?

[scottxyz]

244. The not-hired employees don't have to WORK - that's the difference

Kind of like the difference between being a slave and just being unemployed.

You at least have some free time if you're unemployed.

The arguments here presented by 'outinforce' are ridiculous.

WalMart cannot be compared to Ben & Jerry's - not because they're different sizes, but because:

(1) Walmart busts unions.

(2) Walmart locks emloyees in the store (slavery).

(3) Walmart forces people to punch out and then work without being paid.

(4) Walmart throws its weight around with suppliers as well, making the suppliers' business unprofitable.

Check out the story of Wal-Mart and the pickles:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

The giant retailer's low prices often come with a high cost. Wal-Mart's relentless pressure can crush the companies it does business with and force them to send jobs overseas. Are we shopping our way straight to the unemployment line?


The fact is, Wal-Mart is pathological. It is only focused on one thing - increasing shareholder value. We are free to establish any rules and morals and yardsticks we want to measure and regulate our corporations and society. Wal-Mart's one-dimensional yardstick, which perhaps legal most of the time, is the wrong yardstick to use.

And to rebut again that ridiculous argument about "not hiring" versus "underpaying" employees: Look at it from the employee's standpoint. If you're not hired at least you can stay home. If you're hired and underpaid it's really worse than not being hired at all.

[Pithlet]

27. That makes no sense.

Ben and Jerry's is not the same size, nor does it harm local communities the way Wal Mart does. How can you compare the two?

Yes, we can and should look at all companies and measure their worth and effect on the communities, but considering Wal Mart is the largest, and uses tactics that Ben and Jerry's does not, I really don't think you can compare the two. They aren't even on the same level.

[davekriss]

50. OK, I propose we levy a tax...

I propose we levy a "quality of life" tax. Democratically pick a "quality of life" norm. Levy Walmart with the $420,000 per store that flows to their bottom line because they choose not to honor this norm. Pay Ben & Jerry's a tax credit because they choose to exceed this norm.

In fact, levy the same system of taxes and credits on all businesses -- including those that pay some of their workforce pennies an hour in countries that choose not to live up to norms of occupational and environmental standards we decide democratically to establish for ourselves. Thus ending the offshoring threat.

We need to stop socializing costs while privatizing profits. We need to level the playing field with all citizens in mind.

[terryg11]

60. B&J's made a business decision

A company is free to hire and employee as many people as they wish. The government should never be in the game of telling companies what to do. Unlessss you support socialism in which case you are probbly in the wrong country. sorry

By making the decision not to hire more people, Ben and Jerry's still leaves plenty of room for competition in their market, thus opening the door for other small business owners to do the same thing. Ben and Jerry's could probably expand just as you suggest but that could very well mean less quality prodct which they may not be willing to do (good for them). Also have to take into account the fact that maybe, just maybe B&J understand that they don't want to deal with a bigger company since it is much more to manage and could actually be doing themselves a disservice by expanding.

[outinforce]

62. And So Did WalMart

B&J's made a business decision not to hire more people than it thinks it needs in order to maximize its profit. Walmart made a business decision to offer employment at a wage and benefit level that it thinks will maximize its profit.

Why is it that B&J's business decisionm is more "virtuous" than that of Walmart?

[terryg11]

63. as has already been pointed out

BJ's isn't telling it's employees to get on the doll. They are willing to pay their workers decent AND provide them benefits. I know Walmart does offer some benefts to some employees but the sources for the original post of this thread are valid.

Another thing, it's more expensive for a company the size of BJ's to offer benefits than Walmart (due to size) so one would think that if this was an acceptable business practice (encouraging workrs to get on social programs such as they are) then it should be Ben and Jerry's telling their people to do it and Walmart with it's hndreds of millions in PROFITS offering reasonable benefits.
The larger a company, the more people it has to put on an insurance plan, thus the more premiums it can offer to an insurance company so they can typically get a decent deal from the insurers since they will be providing a good source of regular income to the insurer. Those with smaller payrolls have less to offer in the way of premiums paid (unless they make their employees pick up more of the tab in higher premiums) so often dont get as good a deal from the larger insurers

[sangh0]

185. Not the same

Why is it that B&J's business decisionm is more "virtuous" than that of Walmart?

Because B&J do NOT have a history of breaking the law. Wal-Mart does.

Because B&J do NOT have a history of mistreating their employees. Wal-Mart does.

Because B&J do NOT have a history of endangering their employees. Wal-Mart does.

[scottxyz]

246. You're not very good at math, 'outinforce'

Saying that the fact that Ben and Jerry's only employs about 1000 employees somehow "proves your point" is a false argument.

You need to look at this from a per-capita viewpoint - not from a total number of employees. There's only so much ice cream being eaten, and 1000 employees is enough to handle the work - and they get decent wages because Ben and Jerry's is a good employer.

If B&J were to hire 50,000 employees, that would obviously be stupid because there's not that much demand for ice cream.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart employees (and suppliers) are underpaid for the work (and products) they provide. Unlike you bogus B&J example, in the case of Wal-Mart there IS enough work to be done (or products to be bought) to say that Wal-Mart could and should be paying more - and still turning a handsome profit.

[Brian Sweat]

22. You're argument is flawed.

Ben and Jerry's pays its employees enough that they do not have to rely on government services.

Walmart does not pay its employees enough. Therefore, they have to rely on government services. Therefore, our taxes go to subsidize Walmart. If we did away with the services, Walmarts employees would not be able to work for them and Walmart would either go out of business or have to pay their employees more.

[outinforce]

29. OK....

But Ben and Jerry's only hires a certain number of employees. And if it hired more employees -- and paid them the same amount it pays its current employees -- there would be fewer people who "have to rely on government services", right?

Let's say Ben and Jerry's has 1,000 employees. If it had 1,500 employees, there would be 500 more people enjoying the salary and benefits that Ben and Jerry's pays its employees. And there would be 500 fewer people relying on government services. Therefore, our taxes go to subsidize Ben and Jerry's business decision to employee only 1,000 (and not 1,500) people.

I do question your statement that if the government somehow were to do away with governmental services, Walmart's employees would not be able to work for them. If the government were to stop providing services, why is it, exactly, that the employees at Walmart would have to stop working for Walmart? Would Walmart fire them? Wouldn't they be more likely to try to hold onto any job they have than to quit working? And if they could move to a higher-paying job with better benefits if the government were to stop providing benefits, why don't they do it now?

[Pithlet]

32. When they can no longer show up for work

because they're too sick from lack of food and healthcare, and they've been evicted from their home, and their kids no longer have daycare. Wal-Mart does benefit from having someone else take care of their employees for them, rather than paying them a living wage themselves.

[Brian Sweat]

44. Ben and Jerry's only need X number of employees.

It makes no sense for them to hire more.

Walmart only needs the employees it hires, but it gets them a discount because we subsidize them.

[outinforce]

59. Then It Seems to Me That the REAL Culprits Here Are ....

"Walmart only needs the employees it hires, but it gets them a discount because we subsidize them."

If that is indeed the case, then it would seem to me that the real culprits here are the people who willingly line up to work for WalMart.

If a person takes a job knowing that the ONLY way s/he can survive economically is to apply for government benefits, who really is to blame for the subsidy we have to pay the workers?

The workers who line up to take a job at WalMart could, it seems to me, just as easily withhold their labor, and thereby either force WalMart out of business or to raise the wage and benefit levels at which they employ people.

But no -- the people take those jobs, secure in the knowledge that you and I will still take care of them.

A more correct title for the thread would be "Workers who take jobs at Walmart cost the taxpayers $470,000 per year per Walmart store."

[Brian Sweat]

75. WHen the business encourages the behavior by including

applications for foodstamps in the employment package, the business is at fault. They are clearly taking advantage of the system.

[outinforce]

77. No, the people wo are taking advantage of the system

No.

The people who are taking advantage of the system are the people who KNOW that if they accept employment at Walmart they will have to use food stamps.

It seems to me that if an employer were to offer me a employment package that included an application for foodstamps, I would shove it right back at the employer, and say something like, "Thank You very much, but I am going to go find an employer that will pay me a decent wage and offer me a decent benefit pacakge in exchange for my labor".

If I don't do that, but instead accept the employment along with the application for food stamps, it seems to me that I am the one taking advantage of the system. I don't have to accept the offer of employment.

[sangh0]

81. Them "Lucky Duckies"

I'm so envious of those who make less than subsistance wages.

[outinforce]

86. You Are?

I'm not.

But then, I would never accept a job that did not pay me enough to meet my basic needs.

Some folks do, though.

We enable that behavior, so it should not surprise us that both employers and employees will take advantage of our collective generosity.

[Pithlet]

92. So, it's their fault

For needing to put a roof over their heads and feed their family. Not Wal-Mart, which is the one that actually made the decision not to pay them living wages in the first place.

You would never accept a job that did not pay enough. Because you have that choice, you are assuming that everyone else does, too, and always will. That is really what is fundamentally wrong with your whole argument, right there. These people don't always have a choice to go somewhere else for employment. That is why WM has them right where they want them, and the rest of us, too, as a result.

[outinforce]

109. Tell Me Where It Is, Exactly,

That people live where Walmart is the only place people can go for employment.

I would bet that, in any given market, there are other possible employers -- employers that pay better wages and offer better benefits.

Why is it, exactly, that "these people don't always have the choice to go somewhere else for employment?" Is it that Walmart is truly the only place in town doing any hiring? Or is there perhaps some other reason?

Is there a Walmart where you live? Are you working there? Are there vacancies within the comapny you work for? If so, why would anyone choose to go to work for Walmart, when there are vacancies where you work -- vacancies which pay a higher wage and offer better benefits?

[sangh0]

115. Tell me where it is, exactly

that every Wal-Mart is in an area with other employers that would hire Wal-Mart employees for more money and more benefits?

[Pithlet]

127. I stay at home

with my children, so I do not have an outside employer.

There are other employers who also do not pay living wages. Wal-Mart is usually not the only one in a community, just usually the biggest. If communities where Wal-mart is prevalent had more to offer in the way of jobs with higher pay and benefits, Wal-mart would have a much harder time finding employees who would work for them.

In case you haven't noticed, higher paying jobs are leaving this country for the most part. Getting a job is not like going shopping. Sometimes you have to take what you can get. You have to, or you and your family suffer. Even the lower paying jobs are getting increasingly hard to find because of people who've been outsourced out of their higher paying ones. When GM closed yet another of their plants in Flint, and a new Wal-Mart opened up, thousands applied. These were people who owned homes, and had had decent jobs with benefits, who lost those jobs. They didn't choose to leave a better job for a lower paying one. In what universe do you think that happens, honestly?

[fob]

106. Are you being serious with all your posts?

I refuse to believe you're serious. If only Ben & Jerry's would hire workers they don't need? I think your satire would be more obvious if you were adamant that B&J should be required by a Constitutional Amendment to hire EVERYONE on the planet! I'd call it the Ice Cream Clause!

ASchwarzenegger is that you?

How did you get to a 1000 plus posts on DEMOCRATIC Underground with a stance like that?

[JanMichael]

130. Obviously by being very clever in chosing which threads....

...to jump on. Taking stands that aren't too over the top. Or at least not overly rabid.

Taking issue with minute points, upside-down "freedom" issues are always good, and posting like the wind.

Easy, eh?

[mondo joe]

43. Your Argument is Flawed, as Follows:

Ben & Jerry's and WalMart both employ people.

Ben & Jerry's pays a decent wage, and appropriate benefits so that its employees are independent - they are not a drain on the economy.

WalMart, in contrast, destroys local competition, and provides so little in pay and benefits that these employees are a drain on the economy - and they have few other options since WalMatr has destroyed the local competition.

So you have Ben & Jerry's benefitting the economy, and WalMart using public $ to supplement its inadequate pay and benefits.

[Terran]

179. It's a non-argument

Apples and oranges. Not hiring someone is not exploting them; no contract or expectations are created. Wal Mart employs people and then exploits them. See, wasn't that simple?

[KamaAina]

180. Bzzzzzzt! The issue is how Wal-Mart treats the people it does hire

not who Ben and Jerry's or anyone else does not hire.

Wal-Mart has a nasty habit of employing people at just under the number of hours they would need to qualify for health insurance. In most states, this is 30 hours a week -- hence, the average work week at Wal-Mart is 28 hours a week!

So, people that Wal-Mart has already hired -- not those that are supposedly downtrodden because some other company hypothetically refused to hire them -- remain among the ranks of the uninsured, thus driving up the cost of health care for all the rest of us, including companies that choose to play by the rules.

[outinforce]

205. I Think You May Have Wished To Say

With all due respect, KamaAina, you may wished to have said this:

"Certain people have a nasty habit of accepting employment with a company at just under the number of hours they would need to qualify for health insurance. In most states, this is 30 hours a week -- hence, some people actually voluntarily accept the average work week at Wal-Mart, which is 28 hours a week!

So, people that accept employment with Wal-Mart -- not those that are supposedly downtrodden because some other company hypothetically refused to hire them -- remain among the ranks of the uninsured, thus driving up the cost of health care for all the rest of us, including people that choose to play by the rules (which I guess means people who accept employment only if it provides health insurance.)

[Pithlet]

206. No

He'd only wish to say that if he thought the way you did.

I guess it was the children's and parents fault back in the day when we allowed child labor in this country. After all, it was perfectly legal to take advantage of children to turn a profit, so why not do so? Certain people had a nasty habit of accepting jobs when they were underage, or had a nasty habit of having parents who were poor, and needed them to work, or made them work. It was their choice, after all. Why blame the factories who hired them?

People who are hurt on the job chose to be at that job. Why make companies responsible, when the employees don't have to work there? If they want safer working conditions, they can find someplace else to work.

It's all their fault. Companies are only trying to turn a profit. They're without any moral obligation at all, as long as the law is on their side, and as long as they have employees willing to work for them.

[outinforce]

208. If You Can Show Me

The statute that Walmart violates when it offers employment at a wage and benefit level that is inadequate for people to live off of, except by resorting to government benefits, then fine.

Otherwise, I think that at least part (notice, I said "part") of my outrage will be directed at those people who willingly accept employment with an employer in the full knowledge that doing so will require them to live off the public dole. Especially if other jobs, at higher pay and with better benefits are open to them, and they willingly choose, for whatever reason, to go to work for Walmart. No one forces them to take a job with Walmart, do they?

[Pithlet]

212. Well.

I think your outrage is misdirected. I happen to think that it is irrelevant that there are no statutes that Walmart violates. That has never been my point.

The whole point of my last post that you just responded to is that no company or individual is absolved because the person they're taking advantage of is "willing". They aren't even absolved because they're taking advantage of the law, which hasn't caught up with the current cost of living yet (if it ever will). Walmart takes advantage of the fact that there are people desperate enough to work, despite the fact that they won't let them organize, or work enough hours to qualify for needed benefits, or makes them work off the clock, or doesn't pay them enough so they have to rely on government assistance for the rest.

Save that outrage against the employees, because it does no good. It will affect no change. Instead, perhaps channel it towards the company who takes advantage of the situation. That, at least, could do some good, because Walmart does have the ability and opportunity to do better.

[outinforce]

214. I Think That On This Very Thread

another poster has shown what some Walmart employees have done in response to Walmart's practices. Some have filed suit against discrimination in pay. Others have filed suit against practices involving non-payment of Overtime.

And you know what?

I applaud those employees.

At least they are doing more than simply applying for a job and at the same time filling out an application that will cost the rest of us.

You say that Walmart will not "let" its employees organize? Will not "let"? What exactly do you mean? If Walmart is doing something illegal, then it is up to those employees to exercise the rights that the law gives them to file an unfair labor practice charge against Walmart -- and make it stick.

But if all the employees are doing is putting up with the abuse that Walmart is shoving their way, and being content to not being "let" to organize, then yes, I do reserve some of my outrage at the employees who enable Walmart's bad behavior.

[Pithlet]

217. If you want to be outraged

because people are afraid to lose their paychecks by rocking the boat, then so be it. Just don't get so ruffled when there are people who actually place that outrage where it is most deserved, and effective.

Do you know that Walmart makes its employees watch a tape before they're hired that among other things lies to them and tells them that unions are bad and would hurt them? I could point you to many examples of how Walmart heavily discourages unionizing, as well as all kinds of abuses it heaps on its employees that it underpays. But, it probably wouldn't do any good.

[outinforce]

219. If The Unions Are NOT Doing Their Jobs,

and ensuring that employees receive the rights to which the laws entitle them, then I am more than just a little bit outraged at the unions, too.

Look, I in fact do not condone what Walmart does.

But I do suggest that it could not underpay and under-benefit employees unless there were people willing to work under those conditions.

The fact that some employees have taken Walmart to court for their practices demonstrates to me that there are some Walmart employees who are not content to sit back and cower in the face of all-powerful Walmart.

Unions come into the workplace when enough employees vote them in. If that hasn't happened at Walmart, it is either because the employees like the conditions that Walmart provides or because Walmart is engaging in prohibited personel poractices -- in which case, I think it is up to the union or to an employee to file an unfair labor practice charge with the appropriate board of the Federal Government.

What I don't like are employees who are being abused -- and who simply put up with it. They enable the bad behavior of the employer, and allow the employer to afflict that abuse on others.

[Pithlet]

220. There IS no union

Walmart has don everything it can to ensure that doesn't happen.

Walmart IS engaging in prohibited personnel practices. If you dig hard enough, you can find all kinds of stories. They aren't all headline stories.

Many of those employees who put up with do not know that anything can be done. They aren't aware that what Walmart does to them is even wrong or illegal. They're told by Walmart themselves that those pesky people who keep coming at you to entice you to organize are evil, and will only end up hurting them because they will lose their jobs.

Putting up with it is sometimes the only choice they have. If that is your only source of employment, and you cannot afford to lose it, and have the impression (that Walmart encourages) that doing anything about it could cause you to lose that only source of income, then how can you really blame THEM for not doing anything? Losing a job can mean losing their home, for some, immediately. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, which more and more in this country are doing, then you can't afford the time it takes to find a new job. Rent is due. Childcare fees are due. If you can't even afford for your paycheck to be late one day, then how can you afford to lose it completely? And that's even assuming you could find another job soon. You're blaming the wrong people.

You say that you don't condone what Walmart does. That hasn't sounded like it in your posts here. You gave the impression that it was okay as long as there were those who put up with it, and as long as there is no law against it.

[outinforce]

226. Exactly.

There is no Union at Walmart.

Why not?

Why has any union been so ineffective at organizing Walmart employees?

You say, "Many of those employees who put up with do not know that anything can be done"

Has any union organizer told them anything different? Has any union organizer taken the time to gather the facts and then sue Walmart? If not, why not? If Walmart just keeps putting out false and inaccurate information, and there is no rejoinder from a union, then it seems to me that the unions which can and should be organizing Walmart employees are letting down the employees there.

If Unions are giving the Walmart employees accurate information, including information about their rights as employees, and Walmart staff are still not voting the unions in, then I'd say the employees are, in fact enabling Walmart's behavior.

I understand the sitution that Walmart employees find themselves in. But I still suggest that by remaining Walmart employees -- in the face of severe abuse, Walmart employees enable the behavior of Walmart. An employee may not be able to leave right away, but if s/he remains at Walmart for a long period of time, I would suggest that s/he has made her/himself a willing victim of Walmart's practices.

[Pithlet]

228. This is what happens.

When employees speak out:

Wal-Mart settles wage claims:
"Knows what it did was wrong, and that is what they are paying for"

After just one week on the job, Wal-Mart cashier Cherie Beck was terminated when she complained on behalf of herself and her co-workers to her supervisor about constantly changing schedules that made managing her life nearly impossible. Beck was then fired for what the company called "hostile behavior." In an unusual move, Wal-Mart settled the case, brought by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union on behalf of Beck. Beck has received back pay plus interest, totaling nearly $7,000. The decision to settle came as a surprise, as Wal-Mart historically has resisted settlements.

There's more on that here, and stores of many other struggles of employees against Walmart.

http://www.union-network.org/unisite/sectors/commerce/Multinationals/wal_mart_campaign_index_page.htm

I could post many more links to other stories, including how workers have been trying to unionize, and have been fought at every step. You can blame the people trying to unionize, or, better yet, blame the company trying to stop them. If they didn't, it wouldn't be an issue.

You say:

I understand the situation that Walmart employees find themselves in. But I still suggest that by remaining Walmart employees -- in the face of severe abuse, Walmart employees enable the behavior of Walmart. An employee may not be able to leave right away, but if s/he remains at Walmart for a long period of time, I would suggest that s/he has made her/himself a willing victim of Walmart's practices.

That is in no way relevant. It does not absolve Walmart. You can suggest that she made herself a willing victim, but 1, you don't know her situation, or any others like her, and 2, it doesn't absolve Walmart in any way. Neither you nor I can know really how willing of a victim anyone is. They may not be. There may be some employees that are happy with Walmart. But, when discussing Walmarts practices, and how they should be fought and stopped, it is irrelevant. There are enough employees who have spoken out about the abuses they've suffered to point to a not so pretty picture. Instead of blaming those who've suffered, blame the one's making them suffer.

[outinforce]

229. I Guess

I guess Walmart and its employees are in a very co-dependent relationship.

Walmart is the abuser and the employees are the enablers.

[Pithlet]

232. see post 231

It is pretty on point to what you just said.

We shouldn't just sit and do nothing because a co-dependent relationship is perceived. I would disagree with your co-dependent viewpoint, but even if I did think that's the way it was, you still go after the abuser. You stop it. To do otherwise does nothing.

[outinforce]

234. I Think I Have

I think I have suggested that employees who stand up for themselves -- like the woman who filed a discrimination case against Walmart, or the group of employees who filed a claim against Walmart for Overtime pay owed to them -- are people who have "done something".

I am not the abuser here. Walmart is. And I take issue with your comparison between what Walmart does and what corporations that hired children did.

Walmart hires adults, and we recognize in our legal system the difference between decisions made by adults and those made by children.

If Walmart is so strong, so powerful, so, so ominpotent that it can force adult human beings to consent to work under the most deplorable conditions, and cow those employees into total and abject submission, then I'm really afraid there is little someone like I can do -- for I am only one person, and I would hate to have Walmart on my case....who knows what they might do to me? What could I do -- one lone person -- if all of the employees of Walmart have been unable to stop Walmart?

Walmart is just too powerful for me to do anything. I guess I just have to live with the situation, much as it pains me to do so.

[Pithlet]

239. I didn't say what Walmart was doing

was on the same level as child labor abuse. I was using child labor as an example of an employer legally (at the time) taking advantage of children to further their profits. While what Walmart does and they did are a difference in degree, they are not a difference in kind. They're both exploiting their workers.

I also never said you were abusing anyone. You were the one who came into a thread about Walmart abuses, and said that the employees are at fault, and that what Walmart was doing was perfectly legal. You came across as very defensive of Walmart. You responded to those of us decrying Walmart's practices as evil by explaining that they were perfectly legal, and the employees were enabling it.

What you could do as one person is not tell the employees, or anyone defending them, that they are at fault for being willing employees. While to stop defending Walmart on a message board may not be much, it's a small step.

[outinforce]

240. Come On

This IS a discussion board, right?

And it is permissable to discuss things here, right?

And it is permissable, during a discussion, to point out that which is accurate, no?

So if I point out that Walmart's actions are legal, what conclusion do you think I might want you to draw?

That I think Walmart's actions are OK? Point out where I have ever "defended" Walmart, other then to suggest that Walmart's actions are perfectly legal.

Do you not consider the possibility that by pointing out that the actions that Walmart is taking are legal, I might want a reader to conclude that legislative action might be necessary?

And I believe that if you read through my posts a bit more closely, you will find that I have said in at least two or three different posts, that I do not condone what Walmart is doing.

But it does strike me a being rather odd to say that adult human beings who choose to work under the conditions that Walmart has for its employees should be not be held accountable -- to some degree -- for their decision to work for an abusive employer. They do, in fact, enable Walmart. And, the fact that they have, as far as I can see, never voted a union in, makes me even more convinced that they should be held to account for that.

[Pithlet]

241. From the very beginning

in this thread, you have countered every single post that was against Walmart that you've responded to with arguments to the contrary. You've tried to compare Walmart with Ben and Jerry's, with small businesses, and even with someone like me, hiring a babysitter. The tone of your posts as been very much "What's the problem, here?"

It strikes me as odd that anyone would turn and criticize the employee when it is the employer making the decision to exploit for profit. To me, it makes no sense to do so. It sounds very much like apologizing for Walmart. Employees don't work because they want to. They work because they have to. How can you hold them accountable for that?

[sangha]

251. Come on

This IS a discussion board, right?

And it is permissable to discuss things here, right?

And it is permissable, during a discussion, to point out that which is accurate, no?

And it's permissable to point out that which is inaccurate, such as your assertion that B&J's is responsible for the workers it doesn't hire if Wal-Mart is responsible for the ones it does hire. I'll repeat why you're wrong:

"Besides, there is a simple reason for why employers have some obligations towards those they hire, while having none towards those they don't hire, and nearly every American understands it - When two entities (either businesses or individuals) enter into a contract, they incur obligations to each other. If there is no contract, as there isn't when an employer doesn't hire someone, there are no obligations."

Now I know why you didn't acknowledge your mistake, and avoided responding to my point; It was so you could continue arguing something that you know is untrue.

[Pithlet]

231. Another way of looking at it.

The fight against child labor is one that is still going on in other parts of the world. When it was common in our country, we didn't blame the children and their families for taking the jobs. We blamed those who took advantage of the fact that they were there. Fighting against corporate greed and malice means we fight the corporations who engage in it, not the "willing victims" who are enabling them. If there was no one to point instead at the factories hiring them and demand a change, then we might still have child labor in this country today.

Do you want to fight the problem? Or sit back and say "It's their problem. They're enabling it". Which do you think will get things changed faster?

[JanMichael]

5. AND they've started piping in Faux Breaking News.

A nice captive audiance, eh? Just to brainwash the masses a tad more.

[drdigi420]

9. dont need much soap

to wash the brains of most wal mart shoppers

just not that much to wash

[Kolesar]

8. WalMart sends employees to charity food banks

This was on NOW with Bill Moyers. Walmart management has preprinted sheets to hand to employees of addresses and phone numbers of charities and county relief agencies who need help feeding their families.

Employees at real grocery stores are paid about 33% more since they usually have union contracts (unlike Walmart).

[maggrwaggr]

14. i talked to one of the striking grocery workers in CA

who told me that when you get a job at WalMart they hand you a packet of paperwork that includes an application for food stamps and other forms of government assistance.

Nice. Very nice.

[KT2000]

17. Excellent point

This is exactly the way we have to address the cost of "cost cutting" for what is now Wal-Marts practice, and probably soon to be policy for other corporations as well.

Privatizing government jobs is another way that people are forced onto public assistance. Part-time, no benefits positions replace what were once livable wages with health insurance.

[SoCalDem]

19. You have to factor in uncollected local tax revenues too

The big box stores approach the "city fathers" of a community when they are planning a new location.. They promise jobs jobs jobs, and the c.f. fall all over themselves offering "give-backs","tax credits", and "tax moratoriums"...some lasting for as long as 10 years..


So the big box goes in, often creating traffic nighmares, and putting local businesses out of business..(these local stores have usually been there for years and DO pay taxes)..

Somewhere around the time that the sweetheart deals are set to end, the big boxes start playing hardball.. By that time, lots of the local stores are gone, and the big box threatens to close or move unless more concessions are made to keep them..

The people who "used to" be in business, and now have no jobs have to be factored in as well, but it's a hard one to grasp, since a lot of these people just "fade away", by moving out of the community or if they are older, by retiring..

[G_j]

46. also added infrastructure, police, etc. etc.

there are many many extra costs you don't hear about.

[callous taoboy]

21. Wal-Mart is evil.

[Indiana Democrat]

23. I just called on Wal-Mart a couple of weeks ago...

...and it looks like we're going to get the business.

Not only will I earn the commission, which I'll pay taxes on, but we'll probably hire a couple of new people in order to handle the extra manufacturing...People that will also pay taxes. Oh, and our company will also make a nice tidy profit, and of course...Pay taxes. Then of course there are our suppliers who will realize an increase in business...And you guessed it, more taxes paid. Then of course there are THEIR suppliers...etc, etc, etc...

[outinforce]

25. Please

Don't you get it?

Please see post #21 for a clear, cogent, and impeccably logical statement of the argument against Walmart.

[Indiana Democrat]

30. And we're booting-out an importer.

It CAN be done.

I support Wal-Mart because it supports me...And many others.

[Touchdown]

34. It's certainly much more logical than your Ben & Jerry's strawman.

There is a BIG difference between an Ice Cream maker who is at max capacity with employees...and a retailer who is so emormous, and pays so little that they can sweep up the profits at the expense of their employees, the taxpayers, their small business competition, and their suppliers, like Ben & Jerry's and Vlassic (who went Bankrupt because W-M refused to pay for the gallon pickle jars for what they were worth.).

Your argument is specious...Try again.

[Pithlet]

31. I don't think

anyone is arguing that no one ever benefits directly from Wal-Mart in the short term. What they're saying is that Wal-Mart isn't' the benevolent job creator that it makes itself out to be. When a business, the largest employer in the US, can't even pay its base employees enough to live on, so that they have to rely on taxpayers to do so, then they aren't really helping that community, are they? When they're driving out the competition so that there are fewer places to work, and can pay people less, how is that helping me, the taxpayer? Sure, someone like me might get their bread cheaper, but what is that savings really costing me? Anyone that benefits monetarily from Wal-Mart should look at the big picture, and ask themselves if they're really benefiting all that much.

[ignatius]

33. And of course the employees in China and India

who actually MAKE a product, and not the middlemen, make 50 cents an hour and some work 20 hours a day. Children work long hours as well.

These jobs of course used to be American jobs. How many decent manufacturing jobs have gone away versus your handful of middlemen jobs, all of which would have been here anyway.

Then Walmart pretends to be an all American, red white and blue entity while buying goods from countries which have no labor laws whatsoever.

We were told not to worry when the manufacturing jobs left, we would become a service economy. Well guess what, the ITT,engineering,archetecture and call center jobs are going bye-bye as well.

But not to worry, our largest employer, Walmart who pays shitty wages , hires illegal(read slave) labor, who pays few benefits will be there for you.

When a country produces little and depends upon essentially slave labor, that country is in decline and sadly, many of its citizens are in a delusional state of denial.

Vote Bush and Cheney..a Mcjob for every Mcperson.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Touchdown]

38. There are some "Capitalists" who say...

that collective bargaining is tantamount to socialist coersion, and a subversion of the free market, capitalist ethic...and Wal-Mart is an adherant to that philosophy.

What they don't say is that they want Feudalism, and just call it Capitalism. War is Peace, yada, yada, yada.

[BeachBuckeye]

42. WARNING!!

I once did business with them too. Beware, because they will take you to the cleaners. Wait till they come up to you and ask for a check for $5000 for the "Children's Miracle Network." Did you know they don't contribute a dime to that organization? They squeeze it out of their suppliers. I don't know what you are selling them but, eventually they will find a way to buy it cheaper or produce it themselves and you'll be left holding the bag. Many small companies have enlarged their production facilities at great expense to keep up with Wal-Mart's demands only to be abandoned when Wal-Mart found the product one cent cheaper. They are the most vile, disgusting company on the planet. Ask the folks over at Celina, Ohio what they think of good ole Wally. They'll give you their answer as they gaze at the once prosperous bicycle production plant which is now wasting away. Wally left town and left the good people of Celina with zip. Oh, I need a drink. My blood pressure goes up every time I think of Wally.

[kcwayne]

51. Will you make a profit in 3 years when you are forced to reduce

your prices by an aggregate of 15-45%. It is mandatory with them that you cut your price every year. Make your money this year, next year you may be taking losses and trying to make up for it in volume.

[yankeedem]

53. Did you know that Walmart

routinely "loses" 10% of the shipments sent to its stores? There goes your commission. And when your company has to send jobs to China because Walmart demands a lower price than you give anyone else, there go the jobs (and the taxes, of course).

But it's good for your company, I guess......

[Indiana Democrat]

91. I know a lot of people who do business with Wal-Mart..

...and while I appreciate those in this thread trying to warn me, they're wrong. They're believing the propaganda.

We won't lower our prices by 15-45%, nor will Wal-Mart ask for it. And if they do, we'll walk away.

Our company will not have a problem if we lose the business, we'll just lay-off any extra workers we hired in the first place.

Wal-Mart may very well ask for donations to charities they support (I'm sure they do, as do may other "Box" stores we deal with) and if they do, the donations DO go where they state they do...Anything else would be simple petty fraud...Wal-Mart isn't that stupid.


Don't buy into the propaganda.

[sangh0]

186. Wal-Mart contradicts you

Wal-Mart executives have gone on TV and saiad that they not only demand lower prices, they also go into their suppliers businesses and tell them how to get their prices lower.

But some guy on the Internet tells me it's "propoganda" so I'm sure I never saw what I'm sure I saw.

[yankeedem]

252. I guess I'm getting my propaganda from the wrong people

I get it from a relative and a friend that actually DID do business with them. Not to mention articles like the ones cited here.

Put your head in the sand if you like, I'M NOT the one deriving a living from believing Walmart lies.

[LizW]

78. Be sure to read this article

specifically the part that tells about Vlasic (pickles) experience with selling to WalMart. It explains in detail how Vlasic got into a relationship with WalMart that seemed too good to be true. They sold one particular product to WalMart which, over time, cannibalized their whole production operation and forced them to effectively compete against themselves in the pickle market. As volume of sales of this particular product went up due to huge sales at WalMart, Vlasic's profits actually went down. (Granted, this was not all WalMart's fault. Vlasic's representative made the fatal mistake of allowing WalMart to cherry pick a single low-profit margin product. The huge WalMart sales of that product cut into all other Vlasic retail sales, and simultaneously caused Vlasic to have to cut production of other higher-profit products in order to meet WalMart's demands for delivery.)

When Vlasic realized the tough spot they were in and asked WalMart for a slight price increase, WalMart said no, actually they were looking for a price decrease and the threat was made that if Vlasic didn't play, WalMart would stop carrying any Vlasic products at all.

The article mentions a number of companies that have experienced this kind of choking failure after dealing with WalMart.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

[Indiana Democrat]

97. The people at Vlassic are obviously idiots.

[LizW]

175. Maybe so, but you have to admit

that was scary, wasn't it? Vlasic is not exactly Mom & Pop Pickle Company. They are THE name brand. And they aren't the only company in the article that this happened to.

I'm sure your company will do fine, I'm just saying the article gave me pause.

[YNGW]

41. DEMOCRATS TAKE AIM AT WAL-MART, PART OF WHICH MRS. KERRY OWNS

"But the financial disclosure records filed by Mr. Kerry, who has accused Wal-Mart from the stump of giving its employees inadequate health-care benefits, show that his wife owns between $1 million and $5 million in the company’s stock."

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/02/17&ID=Ar00103

[DebJ]

48. oh my god you've got to be kidding me. This is just too much!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

58. it just gets better and better doesn't it?

amazing

[sangh0]

73. Nothing is "better" than DUers believing Freeper newspapers

The NY Sun was started because the owners felt that NYC needed a truly conservative newspaper. Obviously, the Murdoch-owned NY Post wasn't conservative enough for these people. What's next DUer's believing Drudge?

Oh wait! We've already done that!

[YNGW]

94. Document #17

Here it is:

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/dw/Kerry/FD_02.pdf

Document #17 of 82

Look, they either own the stock or they don't. This says they do. Passing this off on the source doesn't change the fact that Kerry, while talking about how Wal-Mart doesn't provide for it's workers, owns more stock in the company that most people have in personal assets times 10 or more.

And while you're there, check out all the other multi-national corps he's in bed with (Anheuser Busch, Gannett, GE, Goldman Sachs, IBM, Pepsico, P&G, Well Fargo, etc....).

[Pithlet]

95. You're gong to get this thread locked.

Mentioning candidates, btw. Edit that out so this can stay.

Besides, it's not the issue here. We're talking about Wal-Mart underpaying and abusing employees, not politicians owning stock in companies. What you're saying doesn't change any of the arguments many are making in this thread.

[sangh0]

96. "They" don't own Wal-Mart stock

Theresa owns it by herself. You know this, so why say otherwise.

[YNGW]

104. Wal-Mart Stock is on his Senate Financial Statement.

First you say it's a right-wing paper and not to be regarded, now you're saying she owns it on her own which is exactly what the paper you said was unreliable reported. Make up your mind.

He's talking about the evils of Wal-Mart while his wife owns more stock in it value-wise than the average person is worth times 10 or more. Yeah, it might come back and bite him in the a**. What's the point of pretending like it doesn't exist?

[sangh0]

117. So you admit to being dishonest about Kerry owning the stock

Up above you claimed it was Kerry's stock, even though the article you (obviously read) and linked clearly states it belongs to his wife.

exactly what the paper you said was unreliable reported. Make up your mind.

1) I did not say it was unreliable. I said it was conservative.

2) I did not refute that Heinz owns the stock. That is a fact, and facts are neither liberal nor conservative

3) The opinion that this fact reflects poorly on Kerry *IS* a right-wing opinion; one you agree with.

[YNGW]

124. So you admit the original report you dissed is true.

>I did not say it was unreliable. I said it was conservative.

And by that you weren't suggesting it was not reliable? Didn't you make a comparison between DUers believing the NY Sun and believing Drudge? Not buying. TILT!! Play again??

>I did not refute that Heinz owns the stock. That is a fact, and facts are neither liberal nor conservative

No, you just suggested that the publication that reported it was a right-wing rag and therefore unreliable.

>The opinion that this fact reflects poorly on Kerry *IS* a right-wing opinion; one you agree with.

Facts are neither liberal or conservative. Try shoving someone else in a box. It won't work with me.

I just pointed out the facts. That's all. Whether it reflects poorly on Kerry is up to the American people to decide. I just suggested it might bite him in the a**. If you want to call just suggesting it might be a potential problem a "right-wing opinion", then that's strange to say the least. Don't go to GDP2004. You won't believe all the "right-wing opinions" over there.

Here's your chance for "The Last Word" so you can feel like you've won some moral victory. Make the best of it.

[sangh0]

161. No, I admit nothing.

I never said that Kerry's wife did not own those staocks. I pointed out that it's a conservative paper so that it's spin would not be believed.

And by that you weren't suggesting it was not reliable? Didn't you make a comparison between DUers believing the NY Sun and believing Drudge? Not buying. TILT!! Play again??

That's right! The Sun's conclusion that Kerry is hypocritical because of his wife's possessions is as credible as Drudge's conclusions.

No, you just suggested that the publication that reported it was a right-wing rag and therefore unreliable.

No, I suggested that the right-wing rag's opinions should not be believed. I never used the word "unreliable", and besides unreliability could relate to it's reporting of fact OR it's opinions.

just pointed out the facts

You also falsely claimed that Kerry owned the stock. Are you going to deny that, or own up to it? Whichever you do, it's not a fact. You also posted your opinion that Kerry is a hypocrit for criticizing Wal-Mart while he owns stock in it.

Your claim that you "just pointed out the facts. That's all" is dishonest.

[fob]

102. Isn't that a GOOD sign? Kerry attacks an entity in which he holds

stock, sounds like he is a willing participant in going after special interests! Can you imagine cheney speaking out on the evils of Halliburton? I didn't think so.

As for the stocks of multi-nationals, I bet there is a significant protion of DUers that have mutual funds and hold some interest on not only those companies named above but many far worse, it's difficult NOT to these days.

[sangh0]

166. Not true. Kerry owns no Wal-Mart stock

His wife does, as has been pointed out in this thread. Maybe next time, you could read the thread before responding?

[fob]

170. Uh, I DID read the thread. Thanks for the reminder.

You said Kerry doesn't own it his WIFE does. Isn't she a Kerry? My point is valid whether HE owns it or his WIFE does, it still shows a willingness to take on a corporation without regard to how it will affect his personal (or his WIFE's) income/wealth situation. Wouldn't that be refreshing to see bush*/cheney et al doing something similar as opposed to making SURE that their move was posivitely going to enrich them before making any move?

Why jump on me? I read your post where you said it was not true, yet now you post that at least one of the Kerry's DOES own the stock. If you are relying on the splitting of hairs that JOHN KERRY doesn't PERSONALLY OWN the stock, that's pretty weak. It is a far stronger point to make that even though it's MRS. KERRY that owns the stock, it's what you GIVE the special interests in RETURN for their donation/support that's the problem, not that you've taken any money or hold interest in the company. In fact, Mr. Kerry's stance shows a good deal of character on his part as I've stated previously, certianly outstripping any such efforts on bush*s part.

SAME TEAM, MAN, SAME TEAM!
PEACE MY FELLOW DUer!

[sangh0]

177. No, Kerry's wife is NOT a Kerry

and has not one drop of Kerry's blood. Theresa Heinz (she only adopted the Kerry name since John started campaigning for Pres.) is her own woman. Furthermore, the statements weren't "A KERRY owns Wal-Mart stock"; It was "(John) Kerry owns Wal-Mart stock" or "He owns Wal-Mart stock"

Last time I checked, Theresa was a she

[YNGW]

184. And here's the problem

Kerry's out on the stump.

_________________________________

Kerry: I condemn Wal-Mart for their labor practices.

General Public: Doesn't your wife own millions of dollars in Wal-Mart stock?

Kerry: Yes, but that is her, not me.

GP: Tell ya what Kerry, you get your own house in order then come talk to us about how you're here to protect us.

___________________________________

Don't think the link won't be made? Just watch.

I see a potential problem. Others see it, too. Go to GDP2004. There are others noticing other problems. It is OK to discuss these things. In fact, this is the perfect time to discuss them. To ignore them and hope they aren't noticed or that they can be easily explained away is not reasonable.

[camero]

187. Trying to get the thread shut down?

Obviously by mentioning candidates. Now, you see a potential problem. Good, I admire that. Then we can just extropolate that to how about we take care of the issue of Wal-Mart wages before they become the de-facto monopoly in business?

[YNGW]

189. No, I'm not

It's my understanding that if a thread leads to discussion about a candidate, that's one thing. But a thread that started that mentions a particular candidate isn't permitted in GD.

If any mods are reading this and I was wrong, I apologize.

______________________________

I can't control Wal-Marts wages just like I don't control any corps wages. You'll need to address that with Wal-mart.

[camero]

191. Here is the rule

Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

The mods can correct me on this but I think you have started a new topic by mentioning this. It does not pertain just to starting the discussion but to the whole thread. I could be wrong.

[sangh0]

192. You are not wrong

.

[camero]

193. I can address that

With my government. :)

[fob]

194. sangh0, please read YNGW's post #184, since you refuse to "hear"

what I am saying.

Kerry's wife is NOT a Kerry - ??????????
I thought you were relying on splitting hairs, it turns out you are relying on splitting electrons in hair!

I'll even accept your statement as FACT, that she only adopted the Kerry name since John started campaigning for Pres and ignore the disconnect of that staement with the is her own woman statement, but the fact is she is MARRIED to John Kerry, and it is NOT a stretch to refer to her as Mrs. Kerry and it's even less of a stretch to link one's personal life with the other's. But you still haven't addressed the fact that it makes his stance BETTER if they are linked. Why pursue the Newtonian physics parsing of the argument to help Kerry when it makes your case WEAKER?

Are you so tied into the fact that you need to disprove JOHN FORBES KERRY, Senator from Massachusettes, USA, candidate for the presidency for the Democratic Party, year 2004 is in no way shape or form, actually, technically or otherwise related to the damn wal-mart stock that you can't see the point?

The repukes put out an internet ad claiming Kerry(that's Mr. John Kerry for clarification) as a tool of special interest. Now a story comes about that shows he will fight on the right side regardless of how it affects him or even some woman who is her own woman and lives in the same house as him and appears at speeches with him and actually uses the same combination of letters as part of her last name(even if only for political purposes) and you want to dispute that stance?

[sangh0]

196. So what?

but the fact is she is MARRIED to John Kerry

So what? I don't marriage makes one responsible for every little thing your spouse does.



Oh yes it is. It's always a stretch to call someone by someone else's name.

it's even less of a stretch to link one's personal life with the other's

We aren't talking about Heinz's personal life. We are talking about her business investments. Is your spouse/SO/etc (if you have one) responsible for everything you do at work? (or vice-versa if you're not the one who works)

But you still haven't addressed the fact that it makes his stance BETTER if they are linked.

The operative word there is "*IF*", and I really don't think Bush* is going to have much luck (and he would need a lot) linking Kerry with special interests, when it's Bush* who has the big problem on this issue.

Are you so tied into the fact that you need to disprove JOHN FORBES KERRY, Senator from Massachusettes, USA, candidate for the presidency for the Democratic Party, year 2004 is in no way shape or form, actually, technically or otherwise related to the damn wal-mart stock that you can't see the point?

So what's the point? That it makes Kerry vulnerable to Bush*'s claims that Kerry is beholden to special interests?

I am not worried. Not one bit.

The repukes put out an internet ad claiming Kerry(that's Mr. John Kerry for clarification) as a tool of special interest

And the only ones who see it and believe it are the Republicans, who are already voting for Bush*.

Now a story comes about that shows he will fight on the right side regardless of how it affects him or even some woman who is her own woman and lives in the same house as him and appears at speeches with him and actually uses the same combination of letters as part of her last name(even if only for political purposes) and you want to dispute that stance?

Yes, I would dispute that Kerry would be affected by Heinz's stock, and I would dispute that Kerry could be attacked effectively on this (non-)issue. All Kerry has to do is to point out that it has never affected his votes before, and then point out how ALL of Bush* actions are based on who gives him money, followed by a "Who wants more arsenic in their water?"

[fob]

199. Here's what's so...(good ending)

but the fact is she is MARRIED to John Kerry

So what? I don't marriage makes one responsible for every little thing your spouse does.
Who said that?


Oh yes it is. It's always a stretch to call someone by someone else's name.

it's even less of a stretch to link one's personal life with the other's

We aren't talking about Heinz's personal life. We are talking about her business investments. Is your spouse/SO/etc (if you have one) responsible for everything you do at work? (or vice-versa if you're not the one who works)

Wow. You aren't even trying to have a back and forth. Maybe I'm not clear here. I am not trying to say, nor did I say, that EVERYTHING one person does in a marriage is directly attributable to the other, just that your argument seems to be that John Kerry and Theresa Heinz-Kerry aren't even related.


But you still haven't addressed the fact that it makes his stance BETTER if they are linked.

The operative word there is "*IF*", and I really don't think Bush* is going to have much luck (and he would need a lot) linking Kerry with special interests, when it's Bush* who has the big problem on this issue.

the "they are linked" I was referring to was John and Theresa, not John and special interests

Are you so tied into the fact that you need to disprove JOHN FORBES KERRY, Senator from Massachusettes, USA, candidate for the presidency for the Democratic Party, year 2004 is in no way shape or form, actually, technically or otherwise related to the damn wal-mart stock that you can't see the point?

So what's the point? That it makes Kerry vulnerable to Bush*'s claims that Kerry is beholden to special interests?

The point is that Kerry is LESS vulnerable to bush* claims of special interests ties if he is fighting against a special interest in which he has ties! And yes, being married to Theresa who owns wal-mart stock is a TIE! Ask those GLBTers who are fighting for the right to get tied (married)if it is or not

I am not worried. Not one bit.

Then why do you keep insisting that the John and Theresa connection is so tenuous to prove a point that is detrimental to Mr. Kerry?, if you're not worried

The repukes put out an internet ad claiming Kerry(that's Mr. John Kerry for clarification) as a tool of special interest

And the only ones who see it and believe it are the Republicans, who are already voting for Bush*.

Now a story comes about that shows he will fight on the right side regardless of how it affects him or even some woman who is her own woman and lives in the same house as him and appears at speeches with him and actually uses the same combination of letters as part of her last name(even if only for political purposes) and you want to dispute that stance?

Yes, I would dispute that Kerry would be affected by Heinz's stock, and I would dispute that Kerry could be attacked effectively on this (non-)issue. All Kerry has to do is to point out that it has never affected his votes before, and then point out how ALL of Bush* actions are based on who gives him money, followed by a "Who wants more arsenic in their water?"

Now I think we're onto something! Your final paragraph is MY POINT! It looks like by your answering "YES" you think I was saying that Kerry was affected by Mrs. Kerry(Heinz) holding the stock, if so you missed something somewhere or I did, because that is the exact opposite of what I was saying!

Let me summarize. Mrs. Heinz owns wal-mart stock. Mrs. Heinz is married to John Kerry. Repukes say Sen. Kerry is beholden to special interests. They may point to wal-mart holdings by *a* "Kerry" as proof. This is easily refuted by the Good Senators stance AGAINST said special interst-mart even though it could affect himself negatively either directly (by his marriage to Mrs Heinz) or indirectly by Mrs Heinz holdings. The difference being in how much wait you give the connection of Mrs Heinz "holdings" and her relationship with Sen. Kerry. Repukes lose either way, but I say if you hold that the relationship of Sen. Kerry to Mrs. Heinz holdings is MORE solid, then the repukes LOSE BIGGER, because it shows even GREATER responsibility on Sen. Kerry's part! WHEW!

Friends?

EDIT: I see where I went wrong. My post #102 should read "...Kerry attacks an entity in which he ALLEGEDLY holds stocks, or at least where it is said that his WIFE owns these stocks

I think that would make my stance clearer.

[YNGW]

201. And for a final final

:)

I still believe that it's going to be hard for him to condemn special interests when he is the recipient of their money (even if it's less that Bush). It's like saying Bush is pregnant and Kerry is kinda pregnant. No, you're either on the take or you're not.

And it's going to be tough for him to condemn Wal-Mart when his wife owns el mucho stock in the company. The average Joe & Jane are not going to differentiate between what she owns and what he owns. They're going to say "You're talking about WM's employee mismanagement, etc... but your wife helps WM by giving them millions in capital to continue to do what they are doing."

It's a hard sell.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Ciao!

[Pithlet]

202. That's your story, thread be damned!

;)

Psst. Ixnay on the erryKay. Although this thread is getting a little long, anyway.

[sangha]

203. OK

Wow. You aren't even trying to have a back and forth. Maybe I'm not clear here. I am not trying to say, nor did I say, that EVERYTHING one person does in a marriage is directly attributable to the other, just that your argument seems to be that John Kerry and Theresa Heinz-Kerry aren't even related.

No, my argument is not merely thet are not related. My argument is that this is all a non-issue. The fact that Kerry owns stock in Wal-Mart will have no effect on his campaign for several reasons, one of which is that he doesn't own stock in Wal-Mart. And in my opinion, the fact that his wife owns stock in Wal-Mart won't afffect his campaign either.

the "they are linked" I was referring to was John and Theresa, not John and special interests

And you are still making no sense because Bush* can't attack him on special interests. Who is going to bring this up? Who is going to talk about this link? You don't say.

The point is that Kerry is LESS vulnerable to bush* claims of special interests ties if he is fighting against a special interest in which he has ties! And yes, being married to Theresa who owns wal-mart stock is a TIE! Ask those GLBTers who are fighting for the right to get tied (married)if it is or not

And I think that argument is weak. Bush* will not be able to point it out, and if he does Kerry can show how Bush*'s personal and political interests have influenced his policies while Bush* cannot do the same to Kerry. It's a battle that Bush* can't win. If he thinks this niggling detail will be his salvation, Kerry's probably thinking "Bring it on!"

When the battle narrows to one on one, voters who are comparing the two choices on the issue of corruption will have a clear choice.

Let me summarize. Mrs. Heinz owns wal-mart stock. Mrs. Heinz is married to John Kerry. Repukes say Sen. Kerry is beholden to special interests. They may point to wal-mart holdings by *a* "Kerry" as proof. This is easily refuted by the Good Senators stance AGAINST said special interst-mart even though it could affect himself negatively either directly (by his marriage to Mrs Heinz) or indirectly by Mrs Heinz holdings. The difference being in how much wait you give the connection of Mrs Heinz "holdings" and her relationship with Sen. Kerry. Repukes lose either way, but I say if you hold that the relationship of Sen. Kerry to Mrs. Heinz holdings is MORE solid, then the repukes LOSE BIGGER, because it shows even GREATER responsibility on Sen. Kerry's part! WHEW!

Well, there ya go! Why didn't you say you thought the link should be emphasized.

Yes and no. I see your point but I don't think Kerry himself can explicitely say that "It's my wife's stock" because that will look as if he is blaming his wife. Besides, the news media will report that it is really his wife's stock even without his saying so. IOW, I don't think the point that it's Theresa's stock will, or even can, be emphasized by Kerry.

EDIT: I see where I went wrong. My post #102 should read "...Kerry attacks an entity in which he ALLEGEDLY holds stocks, or at least where it is said that his WIFE owns these stocks

I think that would make my stance clearer.

Actually, I think it was the fact that you want to emphasize the link that threw me. I just don't see how that could be done by Kerry. At best, Kerry can refrain from doing anything to discount the link.

[fob]

210. A little more clarification...

Actually, I think it was the fact that you want to emphasize the link that threw me. I just don't see how that could be done by Kerry. At best, Kerry can refrain from doing anything to discount the link.

I don't want to emphasize the link. I think that *IF* accused, the LINK(John and Theresa's) being solid is a better defense (actually can be used as an offensive - "I will call a company for bad practices EVEN THOUGH it may harm financially a member of my immediate family), than to say, "I, John Kerry don't own the stock, Theresa Heinz does", that cuts to close to "the definition of 'is' is" defense.

[sangh0]

215. Gotcha

I hadn't thought about Kerry's putting it that way. Thanks, that was very interesting (though confusing - whew!)

[fob]

225. I agree, Whew! Good to see there are still some

tough debaters here though. No pink tutus!

Doing my part to keep the "downlink debate" on the front page

[Indiana Democrat]

98. Who cares if they own Wal-Mart stock???

If it's a good invenstment, it's a good investment.

[Jose Diablo]

47. All the talk of right and wrong misses the cause

I would question the "right" of the Reagan, BushI, Clinton and Bush II administrations to weaken labor laws to the point that Walmart can stop the workers from organizing and collectively forcing Walmart to provide better benefits.

The same question comes-up about how exactly it came about that China can manufacture and ship goods from the other side of the globe at lower costs than can be done locally. Who created the capital to build those plants in China? What are the energy costs to ship goods half-way around the globe?

Does China or Walmart pay the full costs of the USA's infrastructure in taxes? I doubt it. Those infrastructure costs are socialized to individuals, not corporations. This is how the corporations find it easy to sell goods in America but not pay the costs of the infrastructure. Export the jobs to avoid the infrastructure costs that are buried in workers wages.

Could it be our tax laws are encouraging this jobs migration out of America?

Edit for spelling

[Ksec]

54. seen the new ad on TV today

It touted WalMarts donations to the tax base like its the peoples savior or something. Its reputation is catching up with it. Unless it becomes responsible and starts providing fair wages and bennies the chain will suffer from its own actions. What are they gonna do? Outsource? LOL

[Ksec]

55. Welfare is a corporate subsidy.

[hunter]

152. Those WalMarts will make pretty good homeless shelters...

...once the Chinese figure out they'd be better off selling the stuff they make to each other instead of trading it to US for overinflated dollars.

Obviously, the solution is for Wal-Mart employees to unionize. I don't know how bad things have to get before that happens. At some point the "average" American has got to notice they are much worse off than their parents or grandparents were.

My dad was a school teacher, and my mom mostly stayed at home. My grandparents were "middle class," they retired at 62, and they still had comfortable incomes.

Today a young school teacher could never afford the kind of house I grew up in, could never afford to send his children to the University of California without student loans, could never take his family on month long camping trips every summer... and so on.

I want to scream "Wake up people!" If we don't unionize, if we don't fight back, workers here in the United States will soon find themselves living in conditions very similar to the workers living in China or India, and this is in fact, already happening.

Very soon now, unless something changes, there won't be enough middle class taxpayers to tap for that "$420,750" annual subsidy to each WalMart, and the US economy is going to get rotten really fast.

[napi21]

188. Never thought I'd say this, but...............

I think the time for the resurection of the unions has come.

They cam into existance when employers were taking advantage of their employees. Gues what? Here we go again!!!!!!

There was a time when unions became too powerful and really didn't serve anybody very well. Today, so much has been given to the large Corps., the general population is suffering.

Just another note to someone who posted earlier today..............
I detest the idea that Walmart abuses the system. They pay minimum wages, schedule employees for just enough hours to keep them under the # needed to qualify for benefits, abuse labor laws,......

The problem I can't figure out is how we can convince MOST Americans that they won't shop there! Most people don't care as long as it doens't affect them! Just give themthe cheepest price!

[sangh0]

190. In my experience

the three most effective arguments to use to get people to boycott Wal-Mart are

1) They lock their employees in the stores at night. I also point out that people have died as a result

2) They cheat their employees on their pay

3) They employ illegal aliens so they can avoid paying American citizens more money

[Pithlet]

198. Too many of them don't care.

As evidenced in this thread. Because those workers chose to be there! It's their fault. :eyes:

[bobbyboucher]

200. Oh my gosh, that was painful and I read only part, Outinforce has

reached new lows in comparing apples to oranges. Wal-Mart paying shit wages and giving shit benefits therefore costing the government is comparable to Ben and Jerry's not hiring the 50,000 more people than they need and paying them a livable wage.

Holy shit, that's beautiful! You need to get a job in the White House, really. They could use a guy like you. Or on talk radio, they never need logic either.

[outinforce]

207. Thanks for Your Comments

Thanks so much for your comments, bobbyboucher.

I can't begin to tell you how much they mean to me, coming as they do from someone so well-versed in logic and in fruitful comparisons such as you.

It appears that some of my posts, though, caused you some pain, and for that, I am truly sorry. You do know, though, that no one is forcing you to read my posts?

And thanks for your thoughts concerning my employment possiblities. I think, however, that I shall respectfully decline your suggestion to have any affiliation with the current White House or with talk radio.

By the way, I must have missed your own arguments regarding the topic of this thread.

Please. I would so much like to hear what you have to say.

Thanks again.

on edit: One more thing, if you don't mind, bobbyboucher. Another poster on this very thread threatened to hit the alert button because I had mentioned his screen name in the subject line of two of my posts. He tells me that it is against the rules here on DU. A word to the wise, if you know what I mean.

[sangh0]

209. You're one to talk

I can't begin to tell you how much they mean to me, coming as they do from someone so well-versed in logic and in fruitful comparisons such as you.

So far, you have posted dozens of times arguing that employers should be held somehow responsible for the people they DON'T hire because employers have some responsibility for those they DO hire. You have yet to explain this. You have only repeated it.

In addition, several people have refuted your assertion and you have done nothing to respond to those refutations aside from repeating your assertion, without providing any argument to support it.

Besides, there is a simple reason for why employers have some obligations towards those they hire, while having none towards those they don't hire, and nearly every American understands it - When two entities (either businesses or individuals) enter into a contract, they incur obligations to each other. If there is no contract, as there isn't when an employer doesn't hire someone, there are no obligations.

[bobbyboucher]

211. You should reconsider

the White House gig, really. Your line of reasoning is right in there with the "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" head fakes.

And I did make my opinion clear. My opinion is that your argument is a STRAWMAN. Ben and Jerry's should hire everyone? That is a fuckin' howler. Tell us again how that ties into WalMart's cheap labor practices and poor benefits package? Let me help you, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with it. WalMart handing out instructions to their employees on how to apply for food stamps? The biggest corp in the world is telling their employees how to get from the government what they should be providing themselves. What was their profit last year? And you're lamely trying to defend those fucks?

[sangh0]

213. Line of reasoning?

You mean OIF has a line of reasoning? All I see is his repeating the assertion that B&J is responsible for the people it doesn't hire. I have yet to see him explain it or offer a line of reasoning to support it.

[outinforce]

216. Why, Thanks Again!

And again I thank you for your suggestion concerning my possible place of employment. Indeed, one of the most wonderful things about living in the US is that I (and, I might suggest, most everyone living here) am free to choose where and for whom I will work. And I choose hot to work for the White House.

And thanks again for repeating the same assertion that sangh0 and others have been simply repeating over and over again -- that Walmart's pay rates should be set at a rate which does not require its employees to receive assistance from the government.

Someone here has suggested that I simply keep stating my opinion without presenting an argument for it. That person should, I think, hold up a mirror. If that were to happen, I think that person might see that s/he is merely doing the same thing.

[sangh0]

218. Try sophistry again

Maybe you'll get it right someday


Someone here has suggested that I simply keep stating my opinion without presenting an argument for it. That person should, I think, hold up a mirror. If that were to happen, I think that person might see that s/he is merely doing the same thing.

From an earlier post (one of several which you haven't replied to) of mine where I do exactly what you say I haven't done; Provide an argument to support my position:

"Besides, there is a simple reason for why employers have some obligations towards those they hire, while having none towards those they don't hire, and nearly every American understands it - When two entities (either businesses or individuals) enter into a contract, they incur obligations to each other. If there is no contract, as there isn't when an employer doesn't hire someone, there are no obligations."

[outinforce]

227. Gotcha!

I get it now. Whew, what an ordeal!

[sangh0]

230. Typical disingenousness

NO acknowledgement or explanation of your mistake.

Good work, oif. You never disappoint

[outinforce]

233. Gotcha! Again!

Ain't it fun playing "gotcha"??!!

Whew.

[sangh0]

235. Are you OK?

You are becoming incoherent, whereas before you were merely a void

[outinforce]

236. A Void, you say?

Before I was merely a void?

A void with which you conversed.

What would that have made you?

You asked if I am OK.....Yes, but I'm a little bored with conversing with someone who thinks I was a void and am now incoherent.

You'll forgive me if I say that, incoherent void that I am, I think I'll find some better way to expend my time and energy than to continue our conversation on this thread.

on edit: Thanks for your concern about my condition. I really appreciate it.

[sangh0]

237. Someone who conquered the void

I think I'll find some better way to expend my time and energy than to continue our conversation on this thread.

Yes, run along now that your silliness has been exposed.

[outinforce]

238. Gotcha! A Third Time!

I just couldn't help myself!

Conquered the void! <<chortle>>

"Run along now"?

Thank you -- so very much -- for condescending to speak to me.

You flatter yourself -- way tooooooo much, I think.

[camero]

222. I'm starting to wonder

If there are any Wal-Mart managers posting on this thread? Not that they would admit it of course. :)

[scottxyz]

249. A Hit Parade of Outrageous Quotes from 'outinforce'

As Wal-Mart goes, so goes the nation.

Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in our country, the biggest single importer from China, and for many vendors, their biggest buyer. For many towns, Wal-Mart is the only name in town - when it comes to getting a job, or purchasing goods.

This is an important thread discussing some of the most vital issues in this country today: corporate welfare, unemployment, living wages, unions, benefits for employees - and how Wal-Mart is twisting the rules of our system to the breaking point.

We are now a country where the richest 1% of the people control more wealth than the other 95% - a gap that has been growing for the past several decades, aided and abetted by twisted priorities and laws designed to reward the bean-counters and the share-holders and the corporate execs while punishing the people who do the actual work of making, supplying and selling products we all need and want.

This thread is about where we want to go as a country - do we want to be like Henry Ford, who paid his workers enough so that they could buy the same products they manufactured?

Or do we want to be a nation of borderline slave-laborers trapped by unemployment in low-paying jobs that pay a pittance while wreaking havoc on our ability to nurture ourselves and our families?

Are we going to continue to fall for the right-wing's carefully planted whispers about "welfare queens" and fail to see the corporate welfare handed out to rich CEOs and shareholders?

Are we going to continue to "blame the victims" and say there's "nothing we can do" because technically no laws are being violated - or are we going to change our laws and our customs to bring them in line with our morals and beliefs?

Up until now, people have only been focusing on how Wal-Mart trains its managers in union-busting, arm-twists its suppliers down to razor-thin profit margins, and exploits its workers, paying them below-subsistence wages, making them work overtime for free, sometimes even locking them in the store - as if they were slaves. All in the name of the great ideals of "shareholder value" and fat CEO paychecks - thousands of times fatter than the miserable pittance its hard-working employees take home.

Now a new accusation has been leveled at Wal-Mart - someone has gone and calculated just how much "corporate welfare" is being handed out to this giant - nearly half a million dollars per year per store in the form of public subsidies to cover the shortfall due to Wal-Mart's low wages - and that's not even counting all the tax breaks this chain also receives from municipalities desperate to coax an employer, any employer into their town.

It is unfortunate that with these weighty issues at stake, some choose to distract and confuse the argument - desperately trying to misapply classic right-wing smear tactics of "blaming the victim" instead of honestly trying to figure out what is wrong with our system and how we can fix it.

This could have been a very important, informative thread, and it still can be - if we choose to focus on the real issues at hand, and start looking for solutions, whether they be legislated or voluntary.

For the first time since Herbert Hoover, we have a president who is presiding over a net loss of jobs. We have a president who lies about the budget, omitting all funding for the wars he started - beefing up only domestic surveillance, law enforcement, and defense - and cutting all other spending programs.

We have a president (our first Harvard MBA president, by the way) who makes phony election-year job growth projections and then withdraws them, embarrassed, the next day, passing the buck as usual and blaming the "number-crunchers," saying "I'm not a statistician". (Note to George - perhaps you could HIRE a statistician. I bet they'd be willing to work for cheap, in this "jobless recovery" you created.)

We have government economic advisors who are now telling us that outsourcing jobs overseas is somehow "good" for our economy.

For the first time in history, we have a budget projecting trillions of dollars in shortfalls - but containing pictures of the president striking presidential poses, instead of the usual sober economic graphs and charts.


And, on this important thread, we have a long-time DU poster named 'outinforce' - who has a pretty interesting take on how poor individuals one paycheck away from poverty should stand up to the largest employer in the world during these times of rampant unemployment:


A Hit Parade of Outrageous Quotes from 'outinforce'

'outinforce': How is it, exactly, that Walmart forces anyone to accept its offers of employment?

>> Um, gee, I don't know - maybe there's no other jobs around during this "jobless recovery"? Ever heard of "supply and demand"?


'outinforce': Why is it, exactly, that in any given labor market, Walmart is able to entice people to work for it, when those same people could just as easily go to work, at higher wages, at other grocery stores or at filling stations or at the local Ben and Jerry's outlet?

>> Um, gee, I don't know - maybe those other stores aren't hiring?

{Aside: I might remind outinforce that just because the sentence "those same people could just as easily go to work at higher wages ... at Ben & Jerry's" is grammatically correct doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the real world. (Posts on political bulletin boards, outinforce, are generally expected to be both syntactically well-formed AND semantically sound - meaning they should not only take into account the rules of English but also the currently prevailing economic conditions.)}


'outinforce': Accepting employment knowing that it will not provide the means to live independently is just ripping off the taxpayers.

Especially if, by withholding your labor from a company that offers employment at a wage and benefit level that does not permit people to live independently, you could compel that company to offer higher wages or to go out of business.

>> Hear that everybody? If you're tired of flipping burgers or working the night shift at Wal-Mart for so little money you can't feed yourself - here's a simple way to fight back: withhold your labor!


'outinforce': I might suggest that we ought to criminalize accepting employment from an employer, if accepting the wage and benefits package offered causes a person to need to apply for government benefits.

>> Now the libertarian or free-market-theorist shows his stripes - let's punish the victim! Lock 'em up! (Those dumb Wal-Mart employees - not the miserly CEO.)

It's that poor unemployed slob's fault that the bean-counters at Wal-Mart are overpaying their execs and overpaying their shareholders and underpaying their suppliers and underpaying (and imprisoning, and union-busting) their employees. So arrest the employees, says 'outinforce'!

Also note that 'outinforce' is quite willing to engage in some legislative activism here - toying with the idea of changing the laws - when it might involve locking up Wal-Mart employees. However, 'outinforce' is adamantly against having a discussion about changing our laws to do things like providing a living wage or universal healthcare. A bit inconsistent here - all rah-rah about locking up those pitiful employees, but heaven forbid we could tinker with corporate profits or corporate freedom via our laws.

Seems like 'outinforce' - like many right-wingers - LOVES corporations but hates individual people.


'outinforce': Depending upon the circumstances, locking employees inside a store may or may not be illegal.

>> Slight change here, 'outinforce' - think you should really say ALWAYS illegal - unless you want to un-amend the Constitution to allow slavery again.


'outinforce': The fact that Walmart has been sued for violating the ADA and for harassing Black patrons is related to how it sets base wages and benefits for its employees how? Because Walmart does something illegal, we are supposed to draw an inference about its wages?

>> Sure, why not. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.


'outinforce': Where did I get the odd idea that business are responsible for those they didn't hire?

Simple.

From the same place someone got the notion that a business is responsible for pay and benefits they did not give {to people they DID hire}.

>> {No comment. Priceless. This is part of outinforce's nonsensical aside about how people who don't work at Ben & Jerry's are in some mysterious way similar to people who DO work at Wal-Mart.}


'outinforce': It seems to me that if an employer were to offer me a employment package that included an application for foodstamps, I would shove it right back at the employer, and say something like, "Thank You very much, but I am going to go find an employer that will pay me a decent wage and offer me a decent benefit package in exchange for my labor".

>> Unless of course you're in a town with a 30% unemployment rate. (As revcarol posts elsewhere: "Try that in Grant County New Mexico where the unemployment rate is 30%, that's THIRTY PER CENT!! We had 200 people show up for one part-time job at the Dollar Store.") That old "supply and demand" thing you might want to read up on, 'outinforce' - when you have some time off from reading "in both English and French -- what JJR {Jean-Jacques Rousseau} had to say about social contracts." Touché!


'outinforce': B&J's made a business decision not to hire more people than it thinks it needs in order to maximize its profit. Walmart made a business decision to offer employment at a wage and benefit level that it thinks will maximize its profit.

Why is it that B&J's business decision is more "virtuous" than that of Walmart?

>> Um, gee... I don't know... maybe because the phantom people B&J didn't hire DON'T HAVE TO SHOW UP FOR WORK? No skin off their back! Whereas the people Wal-Mart hired and underpaid are borderline slaves, giving their labor and not getting paid enough to eat.


'outinforce': It would seem to me that the real culprits here are the people who willingly line up to work for WalMart.

>> Those annoying burger-flippers and underpaid service-sector workers! If they just wouldn't stop driving down wages by lining up around the block whenever a new job is offered! Stay at home when they publish those help-wanted ads - that'll show those cheap bosses!

On a serious note - they could always form a union and try to leverage their strength in numbers against their cheap employers. But scratch that - Wal-Mart is also the nation's biggest union-buster (see below for info and links - which 'outinforce' conveniently omits from his/her factless, fantasy-filled posts filled with hypothetical questions about the phantom employees Ben and Jerry didn't hire).


'outinforce': The workers who line up to take a job at WalMart could, it seems to me, just as easily withhold their labor, and thereby either force WalMart out of business or to raise the wage and benefit levels at which they employ people.

>> Brilliant! What a concept! "Withhold your labor"! Think it will catch on? (You may have heard of another arcane economic tool called a "strike", 'outinforce'. However, in order to call a strike, you need to have a "union" - which Wal-Mart busted - so maybe this isn't such a good idea. Not to mention that 'outinforce' isn't even proposing that employees "withhold their labor" - no, 'outinforce' is saying that PROSPECTIVE employees should "withhold their labor"!)


'outinforce': No one forces them to take a job with Walmart, do they?

>> Nope. Unless you count that "Invisible Hand"... and that 30% unemployment rate in some towns... and the fact that Wal-Mart closed all the other stores down with its cut-throat sourcing and dumping...


'outinforce': You say that Walmart will not "let" its employees organize? Will not "let"? What exactly do you mean?

>> It's called "union-busting". It's been in the news a lot lately. Here's a link in case you missed the news.

http://www.union-network.org/UNIsite/Sectors/Commerce/Multinationals/Wal-Mart_HQ_leads_union_busting.htm

From this website: "It is a pattern of contempt for this nation's labor laws that shows how low Wal-Mart will stoop to keep its workers from exercising their right to have a Union," {says one organizer}

The barebones of the anti-union strategy can be found in Wal-Mart's three basic anti-union manuals for "supervisors," which are available on-line at www.walmartyrs.org and www.walmartworkerslv.com

"Wal-Mart must respond to this type of union activity {signing cards to authorize an NLRB election} immediately in an effort to stop the card signing before the required 30% signatures have been obtained," says Wal-Mart's "Manager's Toolbox To Remaining Union Free," which is given to supervisors.

There you have it. The meaning of "will not let". Complete with Wal-Mart websites containing manuals giving their supervisors step-by-step instructions how to engage in union busting.


'outinforce': Unions come into the workplace when enough employees vote them in. If that hasn't happened at Walmart, it is either because the employees like the conditions that Walmart provides or because Walmart is engaging in prohibited personnel practices.

>> See above. You stand corrected, 'outinforce', n'est-ce pas?


'outinforce': What I don't like are employees who are being abused -- and who simply put up with it. They enable the bad behavior of the employer, and allow the employer to afflict that abuse on others.

>> Oh those pesky willing victims. Bringing everything on themselves, enabling their attackers.


'outinforce': There is no Union at Walmart. Why not?

>> Again. See above. Took me about 10 seconds to find this on google: "Wal-Mart union busting".


'outinforce': By remaining Walmart employees -- in the face of severe abuse, Walmart employees enable the behavior of Walmart.

>> Just like those slaves back in the day. Why, all they had to do was quit picking that cotton and demand their rights. Just like those abused women who don't throw themselves in the street.

Another political concept you might want to study up on 'outinforce' is the notion of "power". As in, "Wal-Mart has a lot of power" because they are a big corporation with a lot of money and a lot of buying power and a lot of city-hall connections most likely and lots of lawyers and operatives and with this power they are able to strong-arm a lot of weaker parties, such as union-busted employees and hungry suppliers.

To review: "power", "union busting" and "supply and demand" - three core concepts which your posts would lead one to believe you know very little about, 'outinforce'. I guarantee, once you learn a bit about these three fundamental concepts, you will be able to comment much more cogently on politics and economics in the future.


'outinforce': An employee may not be able to leave right away, but if s/he remains at Walmart for a long period of time, I would suggest that s/he has made her/himself a willing victim of Walmart's practices.

>> Interesting that this is the FIRST time 'outinforce' takes care to use the gender-neutral pronoun, he/she - instead of just saying "he". Take a look at our next quote - a real thriller if you're an armchair psychiatrist:


'outinforce': I guess Walmart and its employees are in a very co-dependent relationship. Walmart is the abuser and the employees are the enablers.

>> Hmm... just out of curiosity 'outinforce' - could I ask what you think of those battered women who just can't bring themselves to leave house and home (and children) and just keep on taking a beating? "Willing victims"?


'outinforce': If Walmart is doing something illegal, then it is up to those employees to exercise the rights that the law gives them to file an unfair labor practice charge against Walmart -- and make it stick.

>> Or maybe it's up to some DUers to make those accusations against Wal-Mart. Which is what we're trying to do here. Most of us, that is.


'outinforce': If Walmart is so strong, so powerful, so, so omnipotent that it can force adult human beings to consent to work under the most deplorable conditions, and cow those employees into total and abject submission, then I'm really afraid there is little someone like I can do -- for I am only one person, and I would hate to have Walmart on my case....who knows what they might do to me? What could I do -- one lone person -- if all of the employees of Walmart have been unable to stop Walmart?

>> Now you know how a lot of those "willing victim" Wal-Mart employees must feel. And it's even tougher for them - their jobs and livelihoods are actually on the line. If you're afraid to speak out from the comfort of your own keyboard - imagine how terrified they must be. Another reason why it's important for people at DU to have a cogent discussion about this problem and look for some solutions.

'outinforce': Walmart is just too powerful for me to do anything. I guess I just have to live with the situation, much as it pains me to do so.

>> Sorry you feel so... impotent, 'outinforce'. Others on this bulletin board don't feel like you though - the basic premise of this bulletin board is that we can call attention to this issue, rally some support, and maybe things will start to change.

If you aren't part of the solution - then you don't have to compound the problem by piling on, blaming the victims as you do.

When you see a crime in progress, or a legal but outrageous act being committed, it is possible that you may feel helpless to personally step in a put a stop to it yourself.

That still leaves you another option though: speak up - calling the authorities or someone else who IS strong enough to step in.

Oh, I forgot, if you're 'outinforce' there's another option you have also when you feel too weak to step in a stop an outrage from taking place: you can cheer on the perpetrator, or blame the victim - or try to argue and interfere with the brave, committed people who ARE trying to step and or notify the authorities.

If you feel helpless against Wal-Mart, that's perhaps understandable. Perhaps you should simply stand aside then and let others with a better understanding of concepts like "union-busting" and "supply and demand" and "power" do something.

If you don't feel strong enough to fight the good fight or even speak up, 'outinforce' - stand aside and stop interfering with people who ARE trying to do something positive.


'outinforce': So if I point out that Walmart's actions are legal, what conclusion do you think I might want you to draw?

That I think Walmart's actions are OK? Point out where I have ever "defended" Walmart, other then to suggest that Walmart's actions are perfectly legal.

Do you not consider the possibility that by pointing out that the actions that Walmart is taking are legal, I might want a reader to conclude that legislative action might be necessary?

>> Well - it's nice to see that as of post 240 you're finally coming around somewhat, 'outinforce'.

But come on, we're not mind-readers - we had NO IDEA you wanted the reader to conclude that legislative action might be the necessary! Who knew! Why didn't you ever say so! Don't be shy, this is a bulletin board, and you're anonymous, and nobody from Wal-Mart is gonna come and git you if you suggest that a law ought to be passed or pressure should be brought to bear on Wal-Mart to fix this mess.

Progress might actually be made if enough people - like these brave, generous DUers - actually criticize Wal-Mart's actions and try to think up what sort of legislative or voluntary solutions might be appropriate. Such as bringing our laws more closely in line with our notions of "social contract". Such as looking at a moral side to this issue rather than just the legalistic bottom-line you have been insisting is the ONLY dimension for so long.

This is a difficult problem, because it appears Wal-Mart usually isn't breaking {m}any laws, because Wal-Mart is very powerful, because the economy is very weak and people are very desperate. I can understand that you might be at a loss as to what to do. What I cannot understand is why you are wasting everyone's time and distracting people's attention from the real issues, when you admit that you have no idea what to do.


'outinforce': And I believe that if you read through my posts a bit more closely, you will find that I have said in at least two or three different posts, that I do not condone what Walmart is doing.

>> Well. It's mighty big of you to finally say that, 'outinforce'. Thank you so much for finally expressing (after dozens of posts which took this important thread seriously off-track) the fact that you "do not condone what Wal-Mart is doing".

= = =

We'll be polite here and summarize your vast verbiage with your one useful aperçu:

'outinforce': "I do not condone what Walmart is doing"

Bravo! Thank you for your timely input, 'outinforce' - in post # 242 of this thread. Finally, you said what's on your mind. See - that didn't hurt now, did it? And if you had done that way back in your first post instead of in post #242 - just think of how much valuable time you could have saved yourself, and me, and all these other busy people here at DU.


= = =

A modest proposal
Now - one small hypothetical question. What do you condone "less", as it were:

- what Walmart is doing
or
- what its "willing victims" have been doing?

Seems to me you've been complaining pretty mightily all through this thread about the stupid things its "willing victims" have been doing. Whereas we had to wait all the way till your last post to finally hear that - lo and behold - you "do not condone what Wal-Mart is doing".

Go ahead, don't be afraid, come out in force, 'outinforce', just like the rest of us - only against Wal-Mart this time, not against its "willing victims":

Just for argument's sake, imagine a free society, not a monarchy (your training in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau - in French and English - may help you here) - a free society whose laws are formulated (and re-formulated over time) by the openly expressed will of the people and by their duly elected legislators in accordance with their sense of justice and morality.

Imagine further that there is a situation in such a free society under law where an outrage against morality (or at least against economics) is being perpetrated by a powerful institution against weak or nearly defenseless victims - but technically no law is being broken.

What would you do in this sort of situation? Would you speak out against the perpetrator and try to drum up support for bringing your society's laws and customs more in line with its morals - or would you pile on and blame the victims and try to distract the people who ARE trying to speak up and revise the laws and customs?

= = =

(We return you now to your regularly-scheduled thread. Let's put these distractions peddled by 'outinforce' to rest and talk about the real issues now: corporate welfare, living wages, union-busting, employee compensation, universal healthcare - and the bigger question of what kind of society we want to be - not what kind of society we could get away with being without technically violating {m}any laws.)

[camero]

253. BRAVO!

Just beautiful. That post has to be one of the best ones I've ever seen on DU ever. Thank you. :toast:

I could not have said it any better.

[Deja Q]

250. Here's the solution to government spending issues to those cowards...

With social service cuts, made by repukes who praise this filth of a corporation...

Repukes don't get it. For an economy to work and keep people off public assistance, pay them living wages. Duh. It's that simple.

Repukes want things both ways, but when it comes time to talk specifics, they're so cowardly they make Osama Bin Laden's gaggle of grungey gastropods look like moral warriors by comparison.

Want to end the problem of high medical costs, which keeps public assistance and government worker payrolls that much more expensive? FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM: THE HEALTH COSTS. Not to whittle down the symptoms, which in turn creates a vicious circle as more whittling as to be done to compensate for a ballooning problem that nobody wants to touch because it's political suicide. This is America. I've seen enough bumper stickers that say "these colors don't run". That's the biggest fucking cowardly lie I've ever read.

[yankeedem]

254. Thank you for this thread

Certain replies have reminded me to update my "ignore" list. You have added to my DU pleasure greatly.