| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · Shame on Wal-Mart? By Robert Ringer | << >>Post Follow-up |
| TheRumpledOne 6,411 posts msg #51102 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
4/14/2007 9:01:09 PM Shame on Wal-Mart? By Robert Ringer Forget that Wal-Mart employs 1.3 million people in the U.S. alone. Forget that it saves consumers hundreds of billions of dollars each year on retail purchases. Forget that its employees, on average, earn about double the minimum wage. The raw-meat crowd is salivating. Bring out the class-warfare script. The word from some disgruntled employees is that Wal-Mart doesn’t treat its employees “fairly” — whatever that’s supposed to mean. But, definitions aside, this is your lucky day. Because if you think Wal-Mart is “unfair,” guess what? You don’t have to shop there! Wow! What a novel idea — shopping with your feet. If you don’t like the fact that Wal-Mart carries too many products made in diarrhea countries, shop with your feet. If you believe Wal-Mart puts smaller retailers out of business and you’re unhappy with that, shop with your feet. And, yes, if you think Wal-Mart, not George Bush, was the real cause of 9/11, shop with your feet. But let’s get back to Wal-Mart’s employees. Just to make it easy on the witch hunters, let’s assume that there is such a thing as absolute fairness. And let’s further assume that Wal-Mart does, indeed, treat its employees unfairly. That, of course, begs the question: What in the world can be done to protect Wal-Mart’s 1.3 million paid slaves? More good news: In a truly free society, unfair treatment of employees would never be an issue, because workers would be free to sell their services for the highest possible wages on the open market. If someone chooses to work at Wal-Mart, he’s doing so because he believes, for any of an infinite number of reasons, that it affords him the best opportunity to be adequately compensated for his skills, experience, and efforts. An employer doesn’t ask a job applicant to present a list of his job requirements when he hands in his application. On the contrary, the employer lets the applicant know, in advance, what the company’s conditions of employment are. If those conditions include fifteen-hour workdays, minimum-wage pay, no air-conditioning in the summer, no paid sick leave, and an executive perk that allows higher-ups to browbeat underlings for sport, so be it. How can I say such a dastardly thing? Because an employee not only does not have to take such a job, he also has the right to quit that job at any time! He is free. Yep, it really is that simple. And since the unhappy employee is free, he can apply for another job anywhere he chooses. No permission needed. On the other hand, if he chooses to stay in his present job, he is making a clear statement that he believes it’s the best job he can hope to get. If that’s not true, he would be insane, or perhaps masochistic, to stay put. Gee, it doesn’t take a Ludwig von Mises to explain it after all. In a free market, everything works smoothly because both employers and employees are free to make their own choices. It’s only when government bureaucrats or labor thugs — a.k.a. “labor unions” — enter the picture that freedoms are violated. All government intervention between employers and employees results in infringements on the rights of one or the other — or both. The same goes with labor unions. The actions of most labor unions are fundamentally immoral and in violation of the Constitutional rights of both employees and employers. The so-called “union shop” is a violation of the natural rights of every employee who is forced to join a union against his will. And, worse, it is a violation of the rights of an employer to hire whom he wants, when he wants, for whatever reasons are important to him. Unfortunately, that’s not reality in today’s socialist America. After decades of artificially high wages and benefits, job-protection schemes, and government-mandated safety standards, spoiled American workers demand still more. An excellent investment for Wal-Mart would be to spend mega-millions to educate its employees about the morality and efficacy of liberty and laissez-faire economics. And a good place to start would be to put the following quote from communist-turned-libertarian Rose Wilder Lane in their pay envelopes: “Anyone who says that economic security is a human right has been too much babied. While he babbles, other men are risking and losing their lives to protect him. They are fighting the sea, fighting the land, fighting diseases and insects and weather and space and time, for him, while he chatters that all men have a right to security and that some pagan god ?"? Society, The State, The Government, The Commune ?"? must give it to them. Let the fighting men stop fighting this inhuman earth for one hour, and he will learn how much security there is.” Educating muddled minds, however, does not begin with the worker; it begins with big business. If corporate America does not truly believe in laissez-faire capitalism, all is lost. And if it does believe but is unwilling to suffer “mortification of the flesh” in presenting the truth to the public, the case for free enterprise is still all but hopeless. Corporate leaders must be bold and unwavering when it comes to educating their own employees, as well as the public at large, about the mechanics of the marketplace. History has clearly taught us what to expect if good men do nothing. In the meantime, don’t wait for corporate America to come to your rescue. Take every opportunity you can get to extol the virtues of freedom — including free enterprise. It’s true that you are but one person in a sea of millions, but it is completely within your power to be part of the solution to the world’s ills rather than part of the problem. |
| nikoschopen 2,824 posts msg #51111 - Ignore nikoschopen |
4/15/2007 3:30:01 AM Here are the other factoids that are prominently overlooked by the proponents of laissez-faire: 1. I think it is clear to most Americans that Wal-Mart represents a lot of things, but fair dealing and integrity are not Wal-Mart management’s strengths. (George Miller, the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, in his report, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price".) (Source: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/edlabor_dem/rel111505.html) 2. Wal-Mart Fined for Child Labor Violations (Source: http://www.hrmguide.com/relations/wal-mart-child-labor.htm) 3. Bush Administration's Sweetheart Deal With Wal-Mart Expires (Source: http://www.goiam.org/content.cfm?cID=6122) 4. Labor Deal With Wal-Mart Criticized Wal-Mart Stores Inc. received "significant concessions" from the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division when the department and Wal-Mart signed a settlement agreement last year after the company was cited for child labor violations, according to a Department of Labor inspector general report released yesterday. (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101241.html) 5. “Wal-Mart now ranks second behind the U.S. government as the most-sued organization in the world. The supermarkets chain was sued 4,851 times [in 2004] - once every two hours... There are 9,400 cases pending against Wal-Mart in the U.S. court system...” One of these lawsuits—Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.—is the largest civil rights class-action lawsuit in history, currently comprising some 1.6 million current and former female employees of the retail giant. The suit charged Wal-Mart with discriminating against women in promotions, pay and job assignments, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which protects workers from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or national origin). (Source: http://www.misfortune500.org/Company/Show.aspx?companyid=5) By no means, the fact sheet stops here. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,411 posts msg #51119 - Ignore TheRumpledOne modified |
4/15/2007 11:09:27 AM Perhaps you didn't read this far... But let’s get back to Wal-Mart’s employees. Just to make it easy on the witch hunters, let’s assume that there is such a thing as absolute fairness. And let’s further assume that Wal-Mart does, indeed, treat its employees unfairly. That, of course, begs the question: What in the world can be done to protect Wal-Mart’s 1.3 million paid slaves? More good news: In a truly free society, unfair treatment of employees would never be an issue, because workers would be free to sell their services for the highest possible wages on the open market. If someone chooses to work at Wal-Mart, he’s doing so because he believes, for any of an infinite number of reasons, that it affords him the best opportunity to be adequately compensated for his skills, experience, and efforts. An employer doesn’t ask a job applicant to present a list of his job requirements when he hands in his application. On the contrary, the employer lets the applicant know, in advance, what the company’s conditions of employment are. If those conditions include fifteen-hour workdays, minimum-wage pay, no air-conditioning in the summer, no paid sick leave, and an executive perk that allows higher-ups to browbeat underlings for sport, so be it. How can I say such a dastardly thing? Because an employee not only does not have to take such a job, he also has the right to quit that job at any time! He is free. Yep, it really is that simple. And since the unhappy employee is free, he can apply for another job anywhere he chooses. No permission needed. On the other hand, if he chooses to stay in his present job, he is making a clear statement that he believes it’s the best job he can hope to get. If that’s not true, he would be insane, or perhaps masochistic, to stay put. Gee, it doesn’t take a Ludwig von Mises to explain it after all. In a free market, everything works smoothly because both employers and employees are free to make their own choices. It’s only when government bureaucrats or labor thugs — a.k.a. “labor unions” — enter the picture that freedoms are violated. All government intervention between employers and employees results in infringements on the rights of one or the other — or both. The same goes with labor unions. The actions of most labor unions are fundamentally immoral and in violation of the Constitutional rights of both employees and employers. The so-called “union shop” is a violation of the natural rights of every employee who is forced to join a union against his will. And, worse, it is a violation of the rights of an employer to hire whom he wants, when he wants, for whatever reasons are important to him. ============================================ Remember, NO ONE IS FORCED TO WORK AT WAL-MART, THEY CHOOSE TO! On the other hand, EVERYONE WHO WORKS AT WAL-MART IS FORCED INTO PAYING TAXES. If you work for money, then you are a SLAVE. You are NOT free to do what you please with ALL the money you have earned. ABOUT 50% IS TAKEN FROM YOU IN THE FORM OF TAXES. If you make money from trading about 50% IS TAKEN FROM YOU IN THE FORM OF TAXES. If you own your home and have paid off the mortgage you still do not own it. Fail to pay property taxes and the GOVERNMENT will take your home from you. GOVERNMENT is not the solution, it's the PROBLEM!! WAKE UP AMERICA AND SMELL THE HYPOCRISY!! |
| nikoschopen 2,824 posts msg #51127 - Ignore nikoschopen |
4/15/2007 3:13:13 PM TRO, Have you read any books by Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, or Ayn Rand? I didn't think so. Please have the facts straight. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,411 posts msg #51137 - Ignore TheRumpledOne modified |
4/15/2007 6:18:47 PM Atlas Shrugged What FACTS are NOT straight? |
| nikoschopen 2,824 posts msg #51138 - Ignore nikoschopen |
4/15/2007 9:11:01 PM Since this is no political forum, I rather refrain from engaging in a lengthy discussion about the virtues of government or the lack thereof. But if you wish to debate about the evils of government from a Libertarian perspective, you should at least be more informative about what you're talking about before rising to a fevered pitch of blind antagonism. It occurs to me that you display a special kind of hypocrisy of your own that defies definition. For example, you view the government as a problem simply because they levy taxes on just about everything, and yet you recently complained that it doesn't do enough to stop illegal immigrants from entering our country. I have known people like you for years who can't stop complaining about the government ripping people off and yet they're the loudest critic of the government's inability to bring down violence in their backyard, or not enough are being done to raise the standard for their children's education. You see, it ain't the government but the people who govern that's the sole cause of the problem. It wouldn't surprise me to know that you voted Bush into office and then gave him free reign to invade Iraq on the false pretext that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, only to make the region much more unstable than before and give free pass to the terrorists to kill our young men and women in uniform. Of course, the cost of this fictitious war has landed our nation with a record budget deficit (and still rising) that will perhaps never be paid off in our lifetime. What's worse is that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and we're no safer than we were prio to the Iraq invasion. But I have yet to hear any complaints about the lameass policy of this administration, which is more known for their corruption than any concrete accomplishments. I should also like to mention in passing that Walmart received far more special treatment from the Bush administration than their employees. The bone of contention when it comes to Walmart isn't about their employees being "forced into paying taxes" as you stated above. It's about denying them the power of voice to exert their clout at the bargaining table, or else why would Walmart go to great lengths to prevent their employees from joining the union? Check out WakeupWalmart.com for more facts with source citations. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,411 posts msg #51142 - Ignore TheRumpledOne modified |
4/16/2007 4:15:51 AM No, I didn't vote for Bush!! As far as immigration and our borders, personally I could care less whether they are open or locked. However, I don't like the laws not being enforced. Not to mention rights given to lawbreakers. Niko, this is the GENERAL DISCUSSION forum, I don't think SF minds this discussion. But stick to the subject and leave personal attacks out of it. Do you think Washington and Jefferson would put up with the government we have today? I think they would be starting a revolution! Bargaining table? Think about it, why should an employer have to BARGAIN at all? Employers make an offer and the prospect accepts or rejects, that simple. Either you want the job or you don't. If not, then find another job. Or better yet, start your own business. If the employer's wages are not high enough then they won't get anyone to take the job OR they will get the worse possible people. See it's a balancing act that needs no interference from the government. The purpose of government should be to protect our borders, keep the peace and arbitrate disputes AND THAT'S IT! The rest should be PAY AS YOU GO! |
| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · Shame on Wal-Mart? By Robert Ringer | << >>Post Follow-up |
Copyright 2022 - Vestyl Software L.L.C.•Terms of Service | License | Questions or comments? Contact Us
EOD Data sources: DDFPlus & CSI Data
Quotes delayed during active market hours. Delay times are at least 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. Delayed intraday data provided by DDFPlus