EvilMonkey Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 You, I presume, didn't really think through the Wal-Mart analogy. There is a monumental difference between taking on a corporate juggernaut for unilaterally unfair or discriminatory business practices, as opposed to squeezing small businesses because they have the 'audacity' to advertise on a station that syndicates a radio personality they find objectionable or they to run a film they are scheduled to run a responsibly-rated film they are contracted to run. At the same time, I initally conceeded they have the right to operate in such a way if it doesn't break the law. It doesn't mean you have to like it. The Walmart situation I was referring to was the city Council, Jackson, union leaders and anyone else who didn't stand to gain from Walmart opening their first store in the city, being vehemently opposed to it opening, at least until they get their piece of the pie. Guarantee a higher percentage of jobs to minorities, and PUSH backs off. Maybve a campaign donation, councilman A skips the vote. Higher a lobbyist from firm B (who has ties to the mayor) and the council shuts up. While Walmarts labor practices seem to be drastically different from their general public perception, that is not what I was referring to. On those areas, we may actually agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 The Walmart situation I was referring to was the city Council, Jackson, union leaders and anyone else who didn't stand to gain from Walmart opening their first store in the city, being vehemently opposed to it opening, at least until they get their piece of the pie. Guarantee a higher percentage of jobs to minorities, and PUSH backs off. Maybve a campaign donation, councilman A skips the vote. Higher a lobbyist from firm B (who has ties to the mayor) and the council shuts up. While Walmarts labor practices seem to be drastically different from their general public perception, that is not what I was referring to. On those areas, we may actually agree! that is your spin of the event as I read the news from Chgicago, I read that very differently the world is an interesting place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 that is your spin of the event as I read the news from Chgicago, I read that very differently the world is an interesting place Yeah, I bet you do. Poor, West side community screams for jobs, tax dollars, any help they can get. Walmart steps up and wants to build a store there. Would provide jobs, tax revenue (which currently went to a Walmart in a suburb, just over the border), and will make use of a few blocks that so far have been just wasteland. Enter the players: Unions, Jackson (and other minority interest groups) and the city council. Unions say "The jobs are too low paying, not up to union scale!". Jackson says "We need guarantees that minorities will be hired, and not just in the lower rank and file jobs!". The council says"If you build it, they (local businesses) will go!" First, Target has several stores in the city, paying wages similar to Walmart. Yes, they do not have the pending suits against them for unfair labor practices that Walmart has, but those matters have yet to be brought up in any of the complaints here. Where is the Union outrage at Target? And why is union wage necessary? If a person can go from unemployment, to $10 per hour, why not? Who cares if another corrupt union doesn't get any dues from that person? As for the hiring of local residents, Walmart agreed to that long before it even went to a council vote. The various groups like Jackson's just wanted to get their faces in the paper. As for the council, it just depended on who they owed most, as to which way they were voting. The ones voting against were in with the unions, the ones voting for were not. As for the usual complaint that Walmart shuts out mom and pop stores, the only complaints were coming from local grocery stores, worried that they were going to open one that also sold food. Walmart had already agreed not to sell food. As for other businesses in the area, other than currency exchanges and liquer stores, not much else to worry about! Sorry to get off on Walmart here, when the topic was Moore, who hates America. Go Sox! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1549 Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Some of the things Republicans on this site say turn me off from the republican party. It really is a shame that people can be so good at putting a negative image on what they believe. If I did not get my news and information from other sources besides soxtalk, I would be a full-fledged democrat, thats for sure...maybe even a communist Anyway, lets keep in mind that Michael Moore is entitled to believe what he wants, and until he says "I hate America and the Democratic principals it is founded on" he does not hate america. If I hate president bush, and most of the congressman and supreme court justices do I hate america? no...only the people who run it. Remember, George Bush and John Kerry are not the fundamental princaples of this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.